United States v. $21,055.00 in United States Currency, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35578

This is a civil forfeiture action seeking to forfeit $21,055 in U.S. currency under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
Deputies located approximately $18,360 in the truck sleeper and $2,695 on claimant’s person; a drug dog alerted to the currency.
Claimant Timothy Vennemann argues the currency was lawfully obtained and lacks a connection to controlled substances, and asserts innocent owner status.
The United States asserts the currency was furnished or intended to be furnished for a drug offense, constitutes proceeds or facilitates a violation, and is forfeitable.
The court grants summary judgment for the United States after considering packaging, dog sniff, and income evidence in a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government can prove forfeiture under § 881(a)(6).	Vennemann contends funds are lawful and not connected to drugs.	The United States must show the currency was connected to drug trafficking or used to facilitate violations.	Yes; government shown by preponderance that funds are forfeitable.
Whether packaging and dog sniff evidence sustain forfeiture.	Vennemann asserts insufficient corroboration for packaging/dog evidence.	Government evidence on packaging and dog alert is probative and weighty.	Yes; packaging and dog sniff are probative and support forfeiture.
Whether claimant’s tax returns and income establish legitimate source for the currency.	Vennemann did not file taxes for 2007-2008 and argues legitimate income.	Large currency with limited legitimate income supports forfeiture.	No; government’s view of income as insufficient to account for currency supports forfeiture.
Whether the government must connect the currency to a specific drug transaction or to drug trafficking generally.	Vennemann disputes lack of a direct transaction link.	Proceeds need only be traceable to drug trafficking, not to a specific transaction.	Proceeds traced to drug trafficking in general are sufficient for forfeiture.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 F.3d 242 (10th Cir. 1986) (summary judgment standard; preponderance of evidence standard outlined)
United States v. $252,300.00 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2007) (totality-of-the-evidence approach; weigh probative value of evidence)
United States v. $149,442.43 in U.S. Currency, 965 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1992) (large currency strengthens inference of drug connection)
United States v. $42,500.00 in U.S. Currency, 283 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2002) (dog sniff and other indicia support forfeiture)
United States v. $30,670.00 in U.S. Currency, 403 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2005) (evidence such as dog sniff and packaging can support forfeiture)