United States v. Real Property in Santa Paula, Cal.
763 F. Supp. 2d 1175
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- The United States filed an in rem forfeiture action against Real Property in Santa Paula, California under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7).
- A search following a 2005 investigation uncovered an outdoor marijuana grow and an indoor grow in a residence and a modular home on the property.
- Detectives observed a large number of marijuana plants, grow equipment, and related cash and firearms on the property.
- Griffiths, the property's owner, admitted knowledge of some marijuana-related activity and had receipts and high electricity usage linking to cultivation; he claimed to have limited involvement.
- Griffiths contends he did all that could be reasonably expected to terminate illicit use, but the government argues he did not take adequate steps and thus the innocent owner defense fails.
- The court granted summary judgment for the government, forfeiting the property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Griffiths have knowledge of the illegal activity? | Griffiths had knowledge based on plants, grow equipment, and hydroponics receipts. | Griffiths denies knowledge or asserts lack of awareness/inconsistent facts. | Griffiths had actual knowledge or willful blindness; no triable issue. |
| Did Griffiths take all reasonable steps to terminate the illegal use after discovery? | Griffiths failed to investigate further or notify authorities beyond telling Jonathan to remove plants. | Griffiths argues he acted reasonably under the circumstances. | No; court found failure to take all reasonable steps to terminate use. |
| Does the innocent owner defense defeat forfeiture when knowledge is established but steps to terminate are lacking? | Innocent owner defense fails where owner knew of illegal use and did not terminate it. | Griffiths contends he did all that could be reasonably expected. | Government entitled to summary judgment on innocent owner defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974) (forfeiture analysis balancing owner's responsibility to prevent illicit use)
- United States v. One Parcel of Property Located at 755 Forest Rd., 985 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1993) (willful blindness and knowledge limits in innocent owner defense)
- 16328 South 43rd East Ave., Bixby, Tulsa County, Okla., 275 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2002) (innocent owner burden and must show lack of knowledge or lack of consent)
- United States v. 69,292.00 in U.S. Currency, 62 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 1995) (CAFRA burden allocation and preponderance standard for forfeiture)