MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is аn action for the forfeiture of defendant $21,055.00 in U.S. Currency. In November 2008, Timothy Yennemann filed his Claim (Doc. 5) and Amended Claim (Doc. 7) as to the defendant. On July 16, 2010, the United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48). Claimant has filed his response to the motion (Doc. 52). The United States filed a reply (Doc. 53). Although nо leave to file a sur-reply was sought, Claimant has filed a Surreply (Doc. 54). The matter is now ripe and the Court is prepared to rule.
The Plaintiff United States contends that defendant $21,055.00 is forfeitable to the United States because the currency constitutes moneys furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for controlled substances and/or constitutes proceeds traceable to such exchange, and/or moneys used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to recover upon thе theory that defendant currency is forfeitable pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
Mr. Vennemann contends that the defendant currency was obtained lawfully by the claimant; that the defendant currency does not constitute moneys furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for controlled substances аnd/or constitutes proceeds traceable to such exchange, and/or moneys used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the controlled substances act; and that the claimant is an innocent owner of the defendant currency.
I. Jurisdiction
As previously statеd by this Court in the Pretrial Order, subject matter jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and 1355, and is not disputed.
II. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A “fact is ‘material’ if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim.”
Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores,
The Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp.,
movant carries this initial burden, the nonmovant that would bear the burden of persuasion at trial may not simply rest upon its pleadings; the burden shifts to the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and ‘set forth specific facts’ that would be admissible in evidence in the event of triаl from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant.
Id., citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
“To accomplish this, the facts must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein.”
Adler,
III. Facts
The Court finds the following facts to be substantively unсontroverted. To the extent that requested findings of fact are not included' here, it is because the Court finds that the requested findings are unsupported in the evidence, irrelevant, or duplicative of other requested facts. The presentation of repetitive, irrelevant, and cumulative evidence does not create any triable issue of material fact.
On April 25, 2008, claimant was lawfully contacted by Deputy Chris Farkes of the Johnson County Sheriffs Office at the commercial vehicle inspection station located on 1-35 at milepost 213 in Johnson County, Kansas. Claimant was a commercial truck driver, and Deputy Farkes was conducting a commercial vehicle inspection on claimant’s truck and paperwork.
During a safety check of the claimant’s commercial vehicle, Deputy Farkes located approximаtely $18,360.00 of defendant $21,055.00 in U.S. Currency, more or less, in the truck’s sleeper area, and the remainder (approximately $2,695.00) on claimant’s person.
Ace, a Johnson County Sheriff drug K-9, handled by Deputy Dusty Bernhardt, a drug dog handler, alerted to the odor of controlled substances on defendant $21,055.00.
Claimаnt’s federally-reported adjusted gross income for the tax years of 2005 and 2006 were $26,084.00 and $21,149.00, respectfully. Claimant did not file federal tax returns in the years of 2007 and 2008.
IV. Analysis
A claimant’s implausible explanation is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
United States v. $86,020.00 in U.S. Currency,
Here, each “fact” that the claimant seeks tо controvert is supported only by his own affidavit or his prior deposition testimony. The Court notes that an affidavit could be sufficient, but in this case the affidavit is conclusory in nature and cites no other corroborating evidence. This is insufficient to controvert a fact. Furthermore, the Court finds that thе stipulated facts in the Pretrial Order (Doc. 47) provide a sufficient recitation of the material facts in the case at hand.
A. Evidence
In any suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the forfeiture of property, the burden of proof is on the government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). To meet its burden, the government may use evidence gathered after the filing of a complaint for forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. 983(c)(2). A court must consider the totality of the evidence as a whole and in the аppropriate context.
United States v. $252,300.00 in U.S. Currency,
“In essence, the analysis concerns whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
United States v. $864,400.00 in U.S. Currency,
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), “The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them: ... All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.”
Admissible hearsay can be used to establish forfeitability of property in any motion for summary judgment.
United States v. $70,150.00 in U.S. Currency,
Circumstantial evidence alone can establish forfeitability.
$30,670.00
at 469;
United States v. $36,634-00 in U.S. Currency,
*1104
Though some courts have held that criminal proceeds must have a “substantial connection” to the offense, that requirement only applies when the government is seeking the forfeiture of “fаcilitating” property or property “involved in” the crime, not when seeking forfeiture of property “traceable to” a crime.
United States v. $118,170.00 in U.S. Currency,
“The usual evidence in a currency seizure case is a dog sniff, a quantity of currency, an unusual manner of packaging and the claimant’s implausible story, which is together sufficient to meet the government’s preponderancе standard.”
United States v. $42,500.00 in U.S. Currency,
1. Packaging
A trained and experienced law enforcement agent’s belief that the manner in which certain currency was packaged and transported was indicative of drug proceeds is probative and is entitled to weight.
United States v. $242,484.00,
In this case, the defendant currency was found in the sleeper area of the claimant’s commercial truck. Included with the Motion for Summary Judgment are affidavits submitted by the officers who conducted the search of the vehicle. These affidavits establish that the majority of the defendant currency was found in one plastic-wrapped bundle containing two individual rubber-banded bundles. The officers recognized this form of wrapping to be commonly associated with transporting drug proceeds. See, Officer Farkes Affidavit, Exhibit 1 to Doc. 49, ¶ 4. Further, in Officer Branner’s affidavit he states that he has observed this type of currency packaging during approximately 50 separate seizure investigations, and that the purpose of such packaging is for concealment and to avoid drug detection by dog sniffs. See, Officer Brаnner Affidavit, Exhibit 2 to Doc. 49, ¶ 2. The remainder of the defendant currency was confiscated from the claimant’s person, secured with a rubber band similar to the rubber bands in the plastic wrapped bundle. See, id. at ¶ 9.
*1105 The Claimant contends that he was able to reseal the plastic wrapping surrounding the sеized currency. See, Yennemann Affidavit, Exhibit 1 to Doc. 52, ¶ 11.
The Court finds that based on the preponderance of the evidence, that the officers’ training and identification of the packaging of the currency as the form of wrapping commonly associated with transporting drug proceeds should be given significant рrobative value-regardless of whether the plastic wrap was resealable or not.
2. Drug Dog Alert
A properly trained drug dog’s alert to currency is entitled to probative weight. Older cases deprecating the value of a dog alert are unpersuasive.
United States v. $30,670.00
at 462;
United States v. $20,330.00 in U.S. Currency,
In the Pretrial Order dated May 26, 2010, the parties stipulated that Ace, a Johnson County Sheriff drug K-9 alerted to the odor of controlled substances on the defendant $21,055. The parties further stipulated that the dog was handled by Deputy Dusty Bernhardt, a drug dog handler. The Court notes that this stipulated fact is a part of the record and determines that the drug dog’s alert to the presence of controlled substances on the seized currency is entitled to probative weight.
3. Tax Returns and Amount of Currency Seized
A court may rely on a claimant’s tax returns in determining whether claimant had sufficient legitimate income to account for possession of a large quantity of currency.
$30,670.00
at 465-66;
United States v. $74,700.00 in U.S. Currency,
A large amount of currency, whilе not alone sufficient to establish a connection to a drug transaction, is strong evidence of such a connection.
United States v. $149,442,43 in U.S. Currency,
In the Pretrial order, the parties stipulated to the fact that during a safety check of the claimant’s commercial vehicle, Deputy Farkes located approximately $18,360 of defendant $21,055 in the truck’s sleeper area. The parties further stipulated that the remainder of the defendant (approximately $2,695) was found on claimant’s person. Additionally, claimant’s federally-reported adjusted gross income for the tax yеars of 2005 and 2006 were $26,084 and $21,1149 respectively. Claimant did not file federal tax returns in the years of 2007 and 2008.
In viewing these stipulated facts in light of the applicable case law, the Court cannot conclude that the claimant had sufficient legitimate income to account for the рossession of such a large quantity of currency. While the mere presence of such a large amount of currency is not alone sufficient to establish a connection to a drug transaction, this court views it as strong evidence of such a connection.
See United States v. $149,442,43 in U.S. Currency,
V. Conclusion
Therefore, the Court finds that based on the totality of the evidence, the Government has met its burden by the preponderance of the evidence. The defendant *1106 $21,055 is forfeitable to the United States because the currency constitutes moneys furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for controlled substances, constitutes proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and/or moneys used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Accordingly, the defendant is forfeitable pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
Therefore, the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) is GRANTED.