United States v. Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($17,900.00) in United States Currency
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10813
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Government filed an in rem civil forfeiture action seeking $17,900 seized from a backpack found at Amtrak’s Union Station as proceeds/contraband connected to drug trafficking under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
- Angela Rodriguez and Joyce Copeland filed verified claims asserting ownership; they testified under penalty of perjury that the cash was their savings gathered over time, transported from New York to North Carolina, and left in Peter Rodriguez’s apartment in a bag.
- Police found a student notebook with the name Peter Rodriguez in the backpack and a narcotics dog alerted to drug residue; Peter initially denied there was money in the bag.
- Government served special interrogatories and, finding the claimants’ story implausible, moved to strike their claims for lack of Article III standing; the district court granted summary judgment for the government.
- The D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo, considering whether at summary judgment claimants asserting ownership need more than an ownership assertion plus some evidence to establish standing.
- Court held that at summary judgment a claimant alleging ownership need only assert ownership and present “some evidence” of it (sworn declarations may suffice); credibility and weighing are for the jury, so the district court erred in striking the claimants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimants had Article III standing at summary judgment to litigate forfeiture | Government: record evidence (dog alert, Peter’s statements) shows claimants’ story is implausible; thus no standing | Claimants: verified claims and sworn interrogatory answers detailing accumulation and transfer of funds constitute some evidence of ownership | Claimants have Article III standing: an ownership assertion plus some evidence (including sworn testimony) suffices at summary judgment; credibility questions for jury |
| Standard of proof required at summary judgment to establish standing in civil forfeiture | Government: claimants must produce more than self-serving statements to survive | Claimants: "some evidence" standard adequate; sworn testimony may be enough | Adopted “some evidence” standard used by other circuits; requiring more risks conflating standing with merits |
| Whether court may disregard sworn testimony as facially implausible at summary judgment | Government: testimony is so implausible courts may set it aside | Claimants: credibility determination improper at summary judgment absent physical impossibility or contradictory evidence | Court: may only reject testimony in narrow circumstances (contradictions, physical impossibility, persuasive evidence of perjury); none present here |
| Proper allocation of burdens between standing inquiry and merits | Government: wants claimants to disprove nexus to drugs at standing stage | Claimants: merits proof is government’s burden; standing is a low threshold | Court: preserving distinction; standing inquiry must not shift merits burden to claimants |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment rule precludes judge from weighing credibility)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing evidence varies by litigation stage)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Rule 56 evidentiary materials that may oppose summary judgment)
- United States v. $133,420, 672 F.3d 629 (9th Cir.) (some-evidence standard for ownership-based standing)
- United States v. $239,400, 795 F.3d 639 (7th Cir.) (ownership assertion plus some evidence suffices)
- Chenari v. George Washington Univ., 847 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir.) (narrow circumstances where court may discredit self-serving testimony)
- United States v. Emor, 785 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir.) (standing requirements in forfeiture are forgiving)
- Johnson v. Perez, 823 F.3d 701 (D.C. Cir.) (accept uncontroverted facts and draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can directly contradict testimony and justify rejecting it)