520 F. App'x 413
6th Cir.2013Background
- Dunn, off-duty CPD, reported a recklessly driven car with a possible firearm; he noted the license plate and alerted on-duty officers.
- Officers Sauterer and Taylor located the car in a beverage store parking lot; Cunningham was arrested and Cantney was retrieved; marijuana was found in Cunningham’s car.
- A search of Cunningham’s person yielded $717; a blue bag in the glove compartment contained $16,040; Cantney admitted drug crimes by Cantney were alleged.
- The officers suspected the cash derived from drug trafficking; Sauterer consulted Officer Cudo to initiate civil forfeiture proceedings; Customs took custody of the cash on December 30, 2009.
- Cunningham was charged in municipal court for aggravated menacing and drug abuse and was convicted of drug abuse; the United States asserted federal forfeiture of the currency under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
- The district court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment; Cunningham contends various issues on appeal; we review de novo and affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over the currency | Cunningham contends lack of jurisdiction over the currency. | US asserts federal in rem jurisdiction was established first and exclusive. | Jurisdiction exists; federal court first to assume jurisdiction controls. |
| Whether the currency is subject to federal forfeiture | Cunningham argues insufficient evidence of forfeiture. | US bears preponderance burden to show currency is forfeitable. | Currency subject to forfeiture; US met burden and Cunningham showed no innocent ownership. |
| Lawfulness of the search and seizure | Arrest/search violated Fourth Amendment. | Searches incident to lawful arrest and automobile search were proper. | Search and seizure lawful; currency lawfully seized. |
| Validity of live Fourth Amendment carveouts for vehicle searches | Argues improper vehicle search. | Vehicle search incident to driver’s arrest justified by evidence of crime. | Search of automobile lawful; currency seizure valid. |
| Tenth Amendment challenge to federal/state forfeiture sharing | Claims sharing interferes with Ohio forfeiture procedures. | No district-court raised Tenth Amendment issue; not reviewable here. | Not reviewed; claim not raised below. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn General Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 189 (1935) (federal in rem jurisdiction governs where first asserted)
- United States v. 566 Hendrickson Blvd., 986 F.2d 990 (6th Cir. 1993) (court first to take jurisdiction controls)
- United States v. $174,206 in U.S. Currency, 320 F.3d 658 (6th Cir. 2003) (burden of proof and innocent ownership framework)
- United States v. $67,220 in U.S. Currency, 957 F.2d 280 (6th Cir. 1992) (claimant’s drug activity as probative in forfeiture calculus)
- United States v. $110,873 in U.S. Currency, 159 F. App’x 649 (6th Cir. 2005) (drugs at scene connect currency to crime)
- United States v. Smith, 549 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2008) (authority to seize currency during valid arrest)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (search incident to arrest and automobile evidence)
- United States v. Charles, 138 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 1998) (search incident to arrest supports seizure of evidence)
- United States v. Caicedo, 85 F.3d 1184 (6th Cir. 1996) (probable cause suffices for arrest)