United States v. $154,853.00 in U.S. Currency, 744 F.3d 559

Marcus’s money seized after Iowa traffic stop; drug dog indicated narcotics; bag contained $154,853 and other items; Marcus claimed ownership; district court allowed amended claims and struck both initial and amended claims for deficiencies; Marcus sought summary judgment asserting Fourth Amendment invalidity; district court ordered forfeiture; this court reverses in part and remands.
Initial claim identified property but not his specific interest; court struck for failure to state interest under Supplemental Rule G(5).
Amended claim claimed $150,353 as bailee interest and $4,500 as earned income; bailor identity not provided; district court struck under Rule G(5)(a)(iii) and G(6).
Special interrogatories under Rule G(6) sought relationship to funds; Marcus answered with Fifth/Fourth Amendment privilege; court found standing insufficient for the bailee portion and that standing for the $4,500 was arguably established; court abused discretion on the $4,500 issue; remand for full consideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in striking Marcus’s verified claim for lack of specificity under Rule G(5).	Marcus argues the claim sufficiently identified his ownership/possession interest.	Government contends the claim failed to identify the claimant’s interest with enough specificity.	Yes, abuse of discretion? No (upheld striking the initial claim).
Whether Marcus’s Amended Verified Claim as a bailee failed to identify the bailor under Rule G(5)(a)(iii).	Marcus asserts sufficient identification of ownership/bailee interest.	Failure to identify bailor federal statutory standing; strike appropriate.	Yes, proper to strike the bailee portion for failure to identify bailor.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking the $4,500 earned income portion under Rule G(6) without necessary basis.	Standing for $4,500 existed; special interrogatories unnecessary.	Interrogatories determined standing; strike appropriate otherwise.	Partially; abuse of discretion; remand to consider the $4,500 with proper questioning.
Whether the district court properly handled Marcus’s constitutional privilege assertions before ruling on motions to strike.	Privileges should control standing determinations.	Privileges need not be resolved before striking claims under G(8).	District court did not err in addressing strikes before privilege rulings; remand to review on merits.

Three Parcels of Real Prop. v. United States, 43 F.3d 388 (8th Cir. 1994) (standing; identification of interest; strike of claims for lack of specificity)
United States v. $104,674.00, 17 F.3d 267 (8th Cir. 1994) (standing; specificity of interest under Rule G(5))
United States v. $11,500.00 in U.S. Currency, 710 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) (standing; bailor identification; Rule G(5) (G(5)(a)(iii)))
United States v. $148,840.00 in U.S. Currency, 521 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2008) (privilege considerations and standing)