United States v. $304,980.00 in United States Currency
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21087
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Randy Davis drove a Peterbilt tractor-trailer on I-70 in Illinois; he hid $304,980 in cash under a mattress in a secret compartment.
- Unmarked DEA task-force officers stopped Davis for a traffic violation and began investigating possible drug money activity.
- Officers obtained Davis’s oral consent to search; they then presented a written consent form which Davis interacted with, including writing on it.
- During the search, a hidden cash compartment was opened and the money was seized along with the truck; Davis was later released.
- The government filed a civil forfeiture action; the Davises moved to suppress the search results and asserted Fourth Amendment rights; the district court denied suppression and the Davises agreed to a stipulated forfeiture subject to appeal.
- The court addressed standing, concluding the Davises had Article III standing to contest the forfeiture of cash.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Davises have Article III standing to contest forfeiture? | Davis claims ownership and possession; colorable ownership suffices. | No standing without proven ownership of cash. | Davises have Article III standing. |
| Was the search of the truck reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? | Davis consented; search within scope of consent. | Search exceeded scope or was not consensual. | Search was reasonable within Davis's broad consent. |
| Did Davis withdraw or limit the scope of consent during the search? | He attempted to withhold by writing 'UNDER PROTEST'. | No unequivocal withdrawal; conduct supported continued search. | No withdrawal or narrowing of consent; search stayed within scope. |
| Should the district court have suppressed the evidence under Rule G(8)(a)? | Fourth Amendment violations warrant suppression. | No violation; consent was valid and searches permissible. | District court correctly denied suppression; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bowlin, 534 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2008) (credibility determinations in suppression rulings)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1987) (scope of consent includes compartments opened without damage)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (permissible consent searches when circumstances indicate authority)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (reasonableness governs Fourth Amendment searches)
- United States v. Maldonado, 38 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 1994) (withdrawal of consent evaluated for clarity and certainty)