967 F.Supp.2d 1286 (E.D.Mo. 2013), 1:11CR00115 SNLJ, United States v. Caruthers

Docket Nº:1:11CR00115 SNLJ
Citation:967 F.Supp.2d 1286
Opinion Judge:STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RANDY CARUTHERS, et al., Defendant
Attorney:No. 1:11CR00115 SNLJ For Reggie Matthews, Petitioner: Kevin L. Schriener, LEAD ATTORNEY, LAW AND SCHRIENER, LLC, St. Louis, MO. For USA, Plaintiff: Abbie Crites-Leoni, LEAD ATTORNEY, Paul W. Hahn, OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEY, Cape Girardeau, MO; Richard E. Finneran, OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEY, St. Louis...
Court:United States District Courts, 8th Circuit, Eastern District of Missouri

Page 1286

967 F.Supp.2d 1286 (E.D.Mo. 2013)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY CARUTHERS, et al., Defendant

No. 1:11CR00115 SNLJ

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri

August 23, 2013

For Reggie Matthews, Petitioner: Kevin L. Schriener, LEAD ATTORNEY, LAW AND SCHRIENER, LLC, St. Louis, MO.

For USA, Plaintiff: Abbie Crites-Leoni, LEAD ATTORNEY, Paul W. Hahn, OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEY, Cape Girardeau, MO; Richard E. Finneran, OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEY, St. Louis, MO.

OPINION

Page 1287

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

ORDER

This case is before the Court on Petitioner Reggie Matthews' Third Party Petition for Return of Property, #175, and the government's Motion to Dismiss, #189. Petitioner, who was not a defendant in the underlying criminal case, seeks return of $412,900.00 in United States currency that was seized in connection with the investigation of the case from the trunk of a vehicle he was driving. The seizure of the currency was conducted by Osceola, Arkansas, police on June 2, 2011, and four days later, at the behest of the county prosecutor, a state circuit judge issued an order transferring the currency to the FBI. The four defendants in the case plead guilty, and as part of their plea agreements, they forfeited any interest they may have had in the currency. On December 3, 2012, this Court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture in favor of the United States, #158, based on the defendants' admissions that the currency constituted proceeds of the offenses charged. In the meantime, on motion by petitioner Matthews, the state circuit judge who issued the order transferring the currency to the FBI, set aside that order because of procedural errors, though the currency remains in the custody of the federal government.

Petitioner's argument is that, " Because a state court has found the original transfer invalid, the federal government is without jurisdiction over the funds as the state court maintains primary jurisdiction." He adds that " . . .the State court's jurisdiction over the seized currency is in rem. This is opposed to the federal criminal forfeiture proceeding in the underlying criminal case which is in personam. " He then concludes that, " Because the state court has vacated its transfer order, the federal government must return the seized currency to the Arkansas state authorities pending the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
1 practice notes
  • 765 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2014), 13-3650, United States v. Caruthers
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    • August 27, 2014
    ...was driving. The district court1 dismissed his petition for lack of standing under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3). United States v. Caruthers, 967 F.Supp.2d 1286 (E.D. Mo. 2013). Matthews appeals, arguing that the district court did not have jurisdiction of the petition and that he has standing. Hav......
1 cases
  • 765 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2014), 13-3650, United States v. Caruthers
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    • August 27, 2014
    ...was driving. The district court1 dismissed his petition for lack of standing under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3). United States v. Caruthers, 967 F.Supp.2d 1286 (E.D. Mo. 2013). Matthews appeals, arguing that the district court did not have jurisdiction of the petition and that he has standing. Hav......