United States v. $179,100.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY
41f4th837
S.D. Ind.2021Background:
- TSA/x‑ray inspection of Waite’s carry‑on at Indianapolis International Airport revealed >25 manila envelopes inside accordion files and children’s clothing containing $179,100 in mixed $20/$50/$100 bills.
- Documents in the bag referenced business entities (541 Holdings LLC / Hanover Properties LLC); bank records for three Wells Fargo accounts tied to Waite showed repeated large cash/check deposits consistent with funneling/money‑laundering activity.
- DHS/DEA intelligence linked Waite to marijuana trafficking (California↔New York); Waite had prior drug‑related convictions and previously traveled through the same airport with ~$55,000 in cash.
- A narcotics detection canine later gave a positive alert on the bag; DHS seized the currency as proceeds of or facilitating controlled‑substances offenses and began forfeiture proceedings.
- Waite filed an administrative claim asserting the money was for a property purchase; counsel later withdrew, Waite did not respond to the government’s summary‑judgment motion or attend settlement, and no other claims were filed.
- The court treated the government’s factual assertions as uncontested and, finding the government proved forfeiture by a preponderance, granted summary judgment for forfeiture.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $179,100 is forfeitable as drug proceeds or property used to facilitate drug offenses/money laundering | Designated evidence (packaging, concealment, bank deposit patterns, DEA intelligence, prior convictions, travel history, dog alert) shows a substantial connection and meets preponderance standard | Waite claimed the cash was to buy property; otherwise failed to contest the designated evidence | Government proved forfeiture by a preponderance; summary judgment granted |
| Whether Waite’s claim should be stricken for failure to respond to discovery (standing) | Gov’t moved to strike claim for lack of standing due to discovery noncompliance | Waite did not meaningfully oppose or respond | Court declined to decide strike issue because gov’t prevailed on the merits |
| Effect of Waite’s failure to oppose summary judgment / Local Rule admissions | Gov’t requested treating its facts as uncontested and moving for judgment | Waite did not respond or appear for settlement conference | Court treated designated facts as uncontested and granted summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard — view evidence favorably to nonmovant)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s burden at summary judgment and nonmovant’s obligation to show specific facts)
- United States v. Funds in the Amount of Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars, 403 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2005) (burden in civil forfeiture and treatment of canine sniff evidence)
- Bell v. Duperrault, 367 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2004) (scope of forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6))
- United States v. Jackson, 935 F.2d 832 (7th Cir. 1991) (large cash deposits can support inference of drug proceeds)
- United States v. All Assets and Equipment of West Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d 1181 (7th Cir. 1995) (prior drug convictions admissible in forfeiture probable‑cause analysis)
- United States v. $141,770.00 in U.S. Currency, 157 F.3d 600 (8th Cir. 1998) (relevance of travel from a drug source state in forfeiture cases)
- Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2003) (failure to respond to local‑rule requirements may result in admission of facts)