United States v. One 2006 Toyota Camry Solara SLE
181 F. Supp. 3d 75
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- The United States filed a verified in rem forfeiture complaint seeking a 2006 Toyota Camry Solara (VIN 4T1FA38P16U094767) under 18 U.S.C. § 2428(b)(1)(A), alleging the vehicle was used to commit or facilitate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.
- Scott Swirling (owner) engaged in online communications with an undercover officer posing as a minor and arranged to meet in Washington, D.C.; he was arrested at the meeting location on January 8, 2013.
- At arrest, Swirling gave law enforcement the keys to the Camry and indicated where he had parked it nearby; he later pled guilty to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)).
- The United States moved for summary judgment; Swirling did not file an opposition and had previously filed a verified claim and answer to the forfeiture complaint.
- The court treated the United States’ factual statements as admitted under Local Rule 7(h) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) and found the logical inference that Swirling drove the vehicle to the meeting location supported forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the vehicle is subject to civil forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 2428(b)(1)(A) as property "used to facilitate" interstate travel to commit illicit sexual conduct | The Camry was used to transport Swirling to the D.C. meeting and thus has a substantial connection to the offense | Swirling did not admit he drove the vehicle to the meeting (answer neither admitted nor denied); otherwise raised no viable defenses in opposition | Held: Vehicle forfeitable—United States established by a preponderance that the vehicle had a substantial connection to the offense (summary judgment for the United States) |
| Whether a factual dispute exists about use of the vehicle that would preclude summary judgment | Facts (including keys given and parking location) establish that Swirling drove the vehicle to the meeting; no contrary evidence presented | Swirling failed to contest the United States’ statement of facts or oppose the motion, so no genuine dispute identified | Held: No genuine dispute; court deems facts admitted under Local Rule 7(h) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) |
| Whether defenses asserted in the answer defeat forfeiture | United States argues the defenses raised are not affirmative defenses to forfeiture and were not developed | Swirling listed three defenses in his answer but did not develop them or respond to the summary judgment motion | Held: Defenses insufficient and not pursued; motion treated as conceded under Local Rule 7(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; nonmovant must present more than a scintilla of evidence)
- United States v. One 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser, 824 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (N.D. Ga. 2011) (vehicle used to transport claimant across state lines for illicit sexual activity establishes substantial connection)
- United States v. 2001 Lexus LS430, 799 F. Supp. 2d 599 (E.D. Va. 2010) (vehicle used to transport minor across state lines for illicit sexual activity supports forfeiture)