Mehrdad Soosan appeals from a judgment of forfeiture against $117,920.00 in United States currency found in a search of his vehicle, arguing that he did not consent to the search and that the government failed to demonstrate a substantial connection between' the money and drug trafficking. We affirm.
On December 16, 2002, Nebraska State Patrol Trooper Andrew Duis stopped Soo-san for making an improper pass while traveling west on Interstate 80. After informing Soosan of the reason for the stop, Duis requested his license and vehicle rental agreement. Soosan mentioned that he was in the state visiting his sister in Lincoln. The trooper asked Soosan to accompany him to the patrol car, and he agreed. Soosan told Duis that he had flown from California to the east coast in order to spend an evening with his brother and then rented the car for the return trip because of a snow storm in New York. When the trooper commented that Soosan was traveling more than he personally ever had, Soosan suggested that Duis come visit his California home the following summer.
Soosan’s offer of hospitality raised the officer’s suspicions. After issuing a warning for the traffic violation and indicating that Soosan could be on his way, the trooper asked him whether he would be willing to answer a few questions. He agreed, and Duis asked if he had ever been arrested. Soosan denied having a history of arrests, which was contrary to information Duis had received from the dispatchers. Soosan also stated that he did not have guns, drugs, or substantial amounts of currency in his vehicle. The trooper requested Soosan’s permission to search the car, and he later testified that Soosan had replied with “something to the effect of T guess if you want to.’ ”
In the trunk of Soosan’s car the officer found four separate bags. One contained a digital scale. Another held trash compactor bags, ziplock bags, plastic wrap, and three cans of air freshener. The trooper knew from his training and experience that all these items are used in packaging marijuana. A third bag smelled to the officer like raw marijuana; inside it was an empty sack with the same odor. Hidden beneath clothing in the fourth bag, the trooper found a plastic sack containing twenty bundles of United States currency totaling $117,920.00. The officer suspected that the items in the trunk were associated with drug activity and asked that Soosan accompany him to State Patrol Headquarters. Soosan agreed.
*828 At headquarters Soosan spoke with a different patrol officer. He gave him a more detailed explanation of his travels on the east coast and stated that his mother had brought the currency from Iran to the United States in 1979 and given it to him for safekeeping. He added that he was planning to use it to start a business. While Soosan was being interviewed, another officer conducted a test on the currency. He gathered some money from his colleagues and exposed the bills to a drug dog who did not react to them, but the dog did alert to Soosan’s currency. The currency was then seized, and Soosan was given a receipt for it.
On May 23, 2003 the United States filed a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), alleging that the money found within Soosan’s vehicle was either proceeds traceable to the exchange of a controlled substance or intended to be used to facilitate the possession and distribution of a controlled substance. Soosan filed a claim asserting ownership of the money. Both parties consented to having the matter tried by a magistrate judge. At trial Soosan testified that he had not consented to the search of his car and that he had lied about not having currency because he was afraid that he could be shot and buried in the cornfields. Soosan denied that any of the materials in his trunk were connected to drug trafficking or smelled like marijuana.
The court 1 found that Soosan had consented to the search and that the government had proven a substantial connection between the money and drug trafficking. Judgment was entered on August 13, 2003, ordering the forfeiture of the currency. Soosan later moved for a new trial and submitted an affidavit from an audio analyst who had listened to a recording of the conversation between Duis and Soosan in the state patrol car. The analyst found it was not possible to determine exactly what Soosan had said to the trooper in response to his request to search Soosan’s vehicle. The court denied the motion for a new trial, and Soosan appeals. He seeks reversal of the judgment of forfeiture and a remand to the trial court with instructions to return the defendant currency to him.
Soosan argues that the court erred in finding that he consented to the officer’s search of his vehicle. He contends that his alleged response to the request for his consent (“I guess if you want to”) was not sufficiently specific and unequivocal to authorize a search, citing
United States v. Reid,
The magistrate judge’s finding of consent is reviewed for clear error, and we find none here.
United States v. Jones,
*829
Soosan also argues that the government failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the currency was substantially connected to drug trafficking, as is required for civil forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
See United States v. $84,615 in United States Currency,
After our de novo review,
see $84,615 in United States Currency,
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Notes
. The Honorable F.A. Gossett III, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.