U.S. v. Two Parcels of Property Located at 19 and 25 Castle Street
| Citation | 31 F.3d 35 |
| Decision Date | 18 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | 1289,Nos. 1130,D,s. 1130 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. TWO PARCELS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 AND 25 CASTLE STREET, New Haven, Connecticut, with All Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Defendant, Jose Gonzalez, Virginia Gonzalez, Claimants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, New Haven Savings Bank, A & A Bail Bonds, Hospital of St. Raphael, Claimants. ockets 93-6109, 93-6155. |
John R. Williams, New Haven, CT, for claimants-appellants-cross-appellees.
Alan Marc Soloway, Asst. U.S. Atty., Bridgeport, CT (Christopher F. Droney, U.S. Atty., D. Connecticut, New Haven, CT, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant.
Before: PRATT, MINER and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges. *
Claimants-appellants-cross-appellees Jose and Virginia Gonzalez appeal, and plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant United States of America cross-appeals, from a judgment entered on April 21, 1993 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Daly, J.) after a bench trial. The judgment runs in favor of the Government on its civil forfeiture claim against in rem defendant 25 On appeal, Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez contend that the district court erred in concluding that they had failed to establish an innocent owner defense as to 25 Castle Street. By way of cross-appeal, the Government contends the district court erred in concluding that 19 Castle Street was a separate parcel under the forfeiture statute and that Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez had established an innocent owner defense as to that parcel. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Castle Street and in favor of the Gonzalezes to the extent that it denies forfeiture of in rem defendant 19 Castle Street. The district court found that the Government had established a prima facie case that the parcels were subject to forfeiture by demonstrating probable cause that they were used to facilitate narcotics offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) & 844. The district court next found that Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez had failed to establish an innocent owner defense under the provisions of section 881(a)(7) regarding 25 Castle Street because they had knowledge of, and consented to, the section 844 violation thereon. The court did find, however, that the Gonzalezes had established their innocent owner defense in connection with 19 Castle Street because they had no knowledge of the narcotics violations that took place on that property. Treating 19 Castle Street and 25 Castle Street as separate parcels in connection with its forfeiture analysis, the district court accordingly ruled that the Government was entitled to forfeiture only of 25 Castle Street.
The facts of this case are for the most part undisputed. The Gonzalezes purchased two adjacent parcels of property designated as 19 and 25 Castle Street, New Haven, Connecticut in 1975 from Mr. Gonzalez' brother. 25 Castle Street includes a three-floor, multi-family residence, and 19 Castle Street includes an unheated garage, with an apartment on the second floor. A driveway runs between the two parcels, but they are otherwise contiguous, with a chain-link fence circling the perimeter of the entire property.
Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez live in an apartment on the first floor of the residence at 25 Castle Street. They have five children: Jose, Benjamin, Renaldo, Virginia and Doraida. Jose, Benjamin and Doraida live in the residence, Jose and Doraida in their parents' apartment and Benjamin in a separate apartment that includes the second and third floors. Aside from Virginia, who is married and lives in Florida with her family, all of the children have severe narcotics problems and have been convicted of narcotics-related offenses. All three sons have served prison time for their convictions.
Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez first became aware that their children had narcotics problems in 1984. Subsequently, they sought to help the children end their narcotics dependence. For example, they sent Benjamin, Renaldo and Doraida at different times to live in Florida to get away from the local narcotics environment. However, they all eventually returned to New Haven. Mrs. Gonzalez also sought to enroll Jose in a drug rehabilitation program, but was informed that, since Jose was an adult, he had to enter the program voluntarily. Finally, it appears that the children, despite the intervention of their parents, continued to use narcotics, hid the narcotics from Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez and repeatedly lied to them regarding their narcotics-related activity.
Narcotics sales occurred regularly on Castle Street in front of the Gonzalez property. Usually, automobiles would drive down the street and stop near the Gonzalez driveway, where someone would approach the vehicle to consummate a narcotics transaction. For example, a videotape made by the New Haven police during a December 9, 1988 sting operation showed a narcotics sale taking place approximately every ten minutes. Moreover, individuals were arrested for possessing and/or selling heroin at 25 Castle Street on at least seven different occasions. Finally, the police executed numerous search warrants in and around the Gonzalez property, resulting in the recovery of more than 100 packets of heroin.
During the execution of a search warrant at their home on November 22, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez were arrested after the police seized forty-two packets of heroin and some Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez also were aware of narcotics activity on Castle Street. They asked the drug dealers to move away and reported the narcotics activity to the police. The dealers retaliated against them by throwing a rock through a window and vandalizing their fruit trees. The attacks discouraged Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez from seeking to prevent further narcotics activity. Although Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez were aware of their children's narcotics problems and the numerous seizures of narcotics, there is no evidence that they inspected their own property for narcotics or took any steps to prevent narcotics activity at the property.
marijuana. Ten packets were recovered from the second-floor kitchen in the residence and thirty-two packets were recovered from the garage drainpipe. Charges against Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez were dropped after Benjamin admitted that the heroin belonged to him. The evidence showed that Benjamin supervised a narcotics organization that sold heroin out of the residence. He kept his operations hidden from his parents by conducting sales from the residence only in their absence and moving sales down the street when they returned home from work. Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez never were home during any police raid other than the November 22 raid, during which they were arrested, and claimed never to have seen illegal narcotics in their residence nor anyone use or sell illegal narcotics there. However, Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez did learn of the raids after they occurred and were informed by the police on several occasions that narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia had been seized.
On October 11, 1990, the Government filed a verified complaint seeking forfeiture of the parcels under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(7) on the ground that the parcels were used to commit or facilitate the commission of a federal narcotics offense punishable by a prison term of more than one year. Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez filed an answer that included an innocent owner defense under section 881(a)(7). Following a bench trial, the district court granted judgment in favor of the Government as to 25 Castle Street and judgment in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez as to 19 Castle Street.
The court first found that the Government had met its burden of establishing probable cause that both 19 and 25 Castle Street were subject to forfeiture. The court determined that the Government had demonstrated that 25 Castle Street had been used to facilitate two separate felony narcotics violations: (1) the possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1); and (2) the possession of narcotics by a person previously convicted of a narcotics offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 844. 1 As to 19 Castle Street, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the parcel bearing that address was used to facilitate the sale of heroin, in violation of section 841(a)(1).
The district court next addressed the innocent owner defense interposed by Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez. The court found that Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez did not have knowledge that 25 Castle Street was used to violate section 841(a); however, it did find that Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez knew about the section 844 violations and consented to that illegal activity by not doing all that they reasonably could have done to prevent the offense. Accordingly, the court held that Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez were not innocent owners as to 25 Castle Street and, therefore, that that parcel was subject to forfeiture. With regard to 19 Castle Street, the court concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez did not know about or consent to any illegal narcotics activity at that location and, thus, had demonstrated an innocent owner defense as to that parcel. Finding that 19 Castle Street was a separate parcel from 25 Castle Street, the district court held that the Gonzalezes' interest in 19 Castle Street was not subject to forfeiture. Each party appeals from the portion of the judgment that was adverse to it.
Under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(7), the Government is entitled to seize and acquire by forfeiture
[a]ll real property, including any right, title, and interest ... in the whole of any lot or tract of land ..., which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year's imprisonment.
In order to meet its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 95 Civ. 10537(BSJ).
...is probable cause to believe that the Phiale is subject to forfeiture under any statute. United States v. Two Parcels of Property Located at 19 & 25 Castle Street, 31 F.3d 35, 39 (2d Cir.1994). To meet this burden, the Government must show "reasonable grounds, rising above the level of mere......
-
U.S. v. Marolf
...the DEA bears the initial burden of proof in a forfeiture proceeding." Id. at 306 (citing United States v. Two Parcels of Property Located at 19 and 25 Castle Street, 31 F.3d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 1994)). Finally, the government makes much of the fact that in a footnote to his § 2255 motion, defe......
-
United States v. 2121 Celeste Road SW
...to police would be less harsh than what other courts have required of landowners. See, e.g.,United States v. Two Parcels of Prop. Located at 19 & 25 Castle St. , 31 F.3d 35, 40 (2d Cir.1994) (holding that parents who feared drug lord retaliation, notified police, and pressed their children ......
-
U.S. v. One 1973 Rolls Royce, v. I.N. SRH-16266 By and Through Goodman
...situations to show that they took reasonable steps to prevent the improper use. See United States v. Two Parcels of Property Located at 19 and 25 Castle Street, New Haven, Conn., 31 F.3d 35 (2d Cir.1994) (owners whose children were using drugs in home and who asked their children to attend ......
-
Clearing the smoke from the battlefield: understanding congressional intent regarding the innocent owner provision of 21 U.S.C. 881(a) (7).
...it reverted back to a conjunctive reading. See, eg., 6960 Miraflores Ave., 995 F.2d at 1558. (63) United States v. 19 and 25 Castle St., 31 F.3d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. 717 S. Woodward St., 2 F.3d 529 (3d Cir. 1993); United States v. 755 Forest Rd., 985 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1993......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...29 U.S.C. [section] 658(c) (2000). (54.) See [section] 658(a) (imposing promptness requirement). (55.) See, e.g., Bancker Constr. Corp., 31 F.3d at 35 (finding no prejudice to defendant's case where employer violated trench regulation, but citation was not issued until after trench was fill......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...(52.) See 29 U.S.C. 658(c) (2006). (53.) See 29 U.S.C. 658(a) (imposing promptness requirement). (54.) See, e.g., Bancker Constr. Corp., 31 F.3d at 35 (finding no prejudice to defendant's case where employer violated trench regulation, but citation was not issued until after trench was fill......
-
Beginner's Guide to Federal Forfeiture
...& (d)(3)(A). 45. See id.§ 983(d)(2)(A). 46. See id.§ 983(d)(B)(i). 47. See, e.g., United States v. Two Parcels (19 and 25 Castle Street), 31 F.3d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. 5.382 Acres, 871 F. Supp. 880 (W.D. Va 1994) (Unless an owner with knowledge can prove every action, reas......