United States v. Damian Phillips, 883 F.3d 399

Durham County deputies searched a storage unit leased to Byron Phillips after reports of a marijuana odor; they found $200,000 cash in vacuum-sealed bags and a drug-detection dog alerted to the currency.
The United States filed a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) asserting the cash was connected to drug transactions.
Damian Phillips (Byron’s brother) filed a verified claim asserting the $200,000 were his life savings, stored in Byron’s unit; Byron submitted a declaration corroborating Damian’s claim.
During discovery Damian produced tax returns, a workers’ compensation settlement check, and unemployment records; total reported income 2003–2014 summed to ~$242,613, but Damian’s asserted expenses and liabilities totaled ~ $250,000 with repossessions, bankruptcy filings, and missed rent payments.
The Government moved for summary judgment arguing Damian lacked Article III standing; the district court granted summary judgment for the Government, finding Damian lacked a colorable ownership interest. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate Article III standing test for third parties in civil forfeiture	Damian: not directly argued; claimant needs only plausible ownership allegation at pleading stage	Gov: claimant must show evidence of ownership at summary judgment	Court: adopt the "colorable interest" test—some evidence of ownership beyond bare assertion is required at summary judgment
Whether Damian presented sufficient evidence of ownership (colorable interest) in the $200,000	Damian: consistently asserted ownership; produced some income records and a settlement check to show funds accumulated 2003–2013	Gov: undisputed financial records and expenses show Damian could not have saved $200,000; thus no colorable interest	Court: Damian lacked a colorable interest; undisputed evidence affirmatively disproved his ownership claim, so no standing
Claimant’s entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on standing	Damian: district court should have held an evidentiary hearing	Gov: no mandatory hearing required; claimant did not request one below	Court: no authority requiring a hearing and issue waived on appeal because Damian did not request it below

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (standing elements for Article III)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (pleading vs. summary-judgment standards for standing)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (view evidence in light most favorable to non-movant)
United States v. $17,900, 859 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir.) (applying colorable-interest test in civil forfeiture)
United States v. $515,060.42, 152 F.3d 491 (6th Cir.) (requiring some evidence of ownership to establish standing in forfeiture)