United States v. One 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser, VIN JTEBU11F670023522
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134608
| N.D. Ga. | 2011Background
- Special Agent Hillman (FBI) investigated a sexual-predation online scheme linked to the defendant vehicle, with an undercover CCSO operation using a fictitious minor persona Sara via Craigslist.
- Claimant Emanuel Lopez engaged in approximately fifty-three emails with Sara from June 10–18, 2010, detailing explicit sexual activity in anticipation of meeting.
- Lopez traveled from Cookeville, Tennessee to Ringgold, Georgia, in the defendant vehicle, intending to meet Sara for sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).
- Court-ordered inventories after a June 18, 2010 traffic stop of the defendant vehicle found condoms and lubricants among other items.
- Lopez was convicted in Georgia state court of computer pornography and attempted aggravated child molestation, and the U.S. government filed this civil forfeiture action seeking to forfeit the vehicle under CAFRA, arguing substantial connection to the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Defendant Vehicle has a substantial connection to the offense | Plaintiff: vehicle used to transport Lopez for illicit sexual conduct shows substantial connection. | Defendant: no substantial connection, entrapment and other defenses negate linkage. | Vehicle has substantial connection; forfeiture warranted |
| Whether Lopez’s entrapment defense bars forfeiture | Plaintiff: government inducement not shown; entrapment lacking. | Lopez: government enticed and induced him to commit crime. | Entrapment defense insufficient; no genuine issue; no defense to summary judgment |
| Whether finality of Lopez’s criminal conviction affects forfeiture | Conviction status not required for connection; CAFRA does not hinge on final state conviction. | Seeks dismissal based on lack of finality to prevent forfeiture. | Finality not required; forfeiture properly based on substantial connection |
| Whether there was a fictitious victim defeating the offense | Fictional victim does not negate the underlying statutory offenses; convictions support forfeiture. | Fictitious victim undermines offense validity. | Not a barrier; courts uphold forfeiture where statutory elements are met |
| Whether the Government’s pursuit of forfeiture was discriminatory | Seizure pursued based on vehicle value; selective enforcement argued. | Dedicated to vehicle value rather than offense, implying discrimination. | No credible showing of discrimination; forfeiture upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. $291,828.00 in United States Currency, 536 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2008) (circumstantial/evidentiary approach to forfeiture analysis)
- United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir. 1991) (aggregation of facts to establish substantial connection)
- United States v. One 1977 Cadillac Coupe DeVille, 644 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1981) (vehicle used to transport to scene of crime supports forfeiture)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc rule for binding pre-11th Cir. decisions)
- United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618 (11th Cir. 1995) (predisposition factors in entrapment analysis)