United States v. Bowser
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15430
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Federal RICO indictment charged numerous members of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, and the government sought forfeiture of property used to further the enterprise or derived from racketeering.
- FBI seized numerous Outlaws insignia and paraphernalia from clubhouses and residences (vests, patches, hats, flags, etc.). Many defendants pled guilty and agreed to forfeit the seized items.
- Bradley W. Carlson (an Outlaws representative) filed a motion to intervene/reopen final criminal forfeiture orders, claiming the Outlaws collective (not individual members) owned the paraphernalia and that he, as an elected agent, held a superior possessory interest.
- Carlson argued the government failed to provide him direct written notice of the forfeiture as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1963 and Rule 32.2(b)(6), and sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
- The district court denied Carlson’s Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) motions, finding he failed to allege a legal property interest under Indiana law or show the government knew of any such interest; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Carlson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carlson had a legal property interest in Outlaws paraphernalia sufficient to trigger direct-notice protections | Carlson: The Outlaws collective owns all indicia; as elected agent he holds a superior possessory/legal interest entitling him to direct notice | Gov't: No cognizable legal interest alleged under state law; members’ possession and plea forfeitures show individual possession; published notice met statutory requirements | Held: Carlson failed to plead a legal (state-law) property interest; equitable/collective understandings do not establish legal ownership; no standing to demand individualized notice |
| Whether government’s notice was inadequate (statutory/constitutional) | Carlson: Government should have provided direct written notice to him because the Outlaws collective owned the items and he represented that interest | Gov't: Provided notice to defendants and published on forfeiture.gov; had no reason to know of Carlson’s asserted legal interest | Held: Court did not reach constitutional adequacy because Carlson lacked a cognizable legal interest that would have put the government on notice; published notice and notice to defendants sufficed as to known parties |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knoll, 785 F.3d 1151 (7th Cir. 2015) (explains RICO forfeiture framework and that property interests are defined by state law)
- United States v. Funds in the Amount of $239,400, 795 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2015) (ownership assertion plus some evidence can suffice at summary judgment in civil forfeiture)
- Anderson v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 759 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Timley, 507 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 2007) (standing requires a legal, not merely equitable, interest)
- United States v. 8136 S. Dobson St., Chicago, Ill., 125 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 1997) (forfeiture notice and ancillary proceeding principles)
- Meridian Mortgage Co. v. State, 395 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. App. 1979) (courts look past label to substance of transaction when determining ownership)