United States v. BOWSER
1:12-cr-00102
| S.D. Ind. | Oct 22, 2014Background
- In July 2012, federal authorities indicted 42 defendants, including 17 alleged Outlaws Motorcycle Club (OMC) members, and seized OMC "paraphernalia" from clubhouses and residences.
- The 17 OMC defendants pleaded guilty and agreed to forfeit the seized OMC paraphernalia; the Government obtained final forfeiture orders and later published notice as required by statute and rules.
- Bradley Carlson (pro se), who alleges a custodial/collective ownership role over OMC insignia, filed motions (petition to intervene, to reopen forfeitures, to compel, and for judicial notice) challenging the forfeitures and alleging he was not given direct notice.
- The Government responded that much paraphernalia was destroyed and some returned to another intervenor; it argued Carlson’s motions were untimely and that it did not have facts requiring individualized notice to Carlson.
- The principal legal question was whether Carlson was entitled to direct (individualized) notice and whether he has an established property interest sufficient to reopen final forfeiture orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carlson was entitled to direct notice of forfeiture | Carlson: DOJ knew of OMC national structure and Carlson’s role; thus DOJ should have given individualized notice | Government: It did not know Carlson or factual basis to identify him as a potential claimant; published notice sufficed | Court: No individualized notice required; DOJ did not have facts making Carlson a known claimant |
| Whether Carlson has a vested property interest in OMC paraphernalia | Carlson: As designated custodian/representative of collective OMC ownership, he has superior possessory/control rights | Government: Paraphernalia is organizational property of OMC, and Carlson failed to show possession or control sufficient to create a vested interest | Court: Carlson failed to allege specific facts showing vested property interest; claim insufficient to reopen forfeitures |
| Whether collective ownership claims can defeat forfeiture | Carlson: Collective ownership of indicia means property is not defendant’s to forfeit | Government: Allowing such claims would allow organizations to shield assets by labeling them "shared" | Court: Court agreed that sham/nominee or collective-ownership claims without factual support cannot defeat forfeiture |
| Timeliness / ability to reopen final orders | Carlson: Late challenge should be excused because he did not receive direct notice | Government: Motions are untimely; published notice was adequate and Carlson not entitled to relief | Court: Motions denied as untimely; reopening not warranted absent proper individualized notice or established interest |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rosga, 864 F. Supp. 2d 439 (E.D. Va. 2012) (similar OMC-members’ challenge to forfeiture and discussion of notice and collective-ownership claims)
- United States v. Phillips, 185 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 1999) (specific notice is permissive, not mandatory, in forfeiture contexts)
- United States v. Morgan, 224 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2000) (denying third-party claims where parties act as nominees or engage in sham transactions)
- Application of Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973) (lawyers as officers of the court; discussion cited regarding acceptance of counsel’s statements)