U.S. v. $10,694.00 U.S. Currency, 86-1735
| Decision Date | 08 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1735,86-1735 |
| Citation | 828 F.2d 233 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. $10,694.00 U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Richard Lee Robertson, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Robert H. Edmunds, Jr., U.S. Atty., Greensboro, N.C., N/A Becky M. Strickland, CLA, Paralegal Specialist, on brief), for appellant.
George Nicholas Herman (Steven A. Bernholz, Coleman, Bernholz, Dickerson, Bernholz, Gledhill & Hargrave, Chapel Hill, N.C., on brief), for appellee.
Before HALL and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
The government appeals from the district court's bench decision denying government forfeiture of $10,694 in attorney fees. Forfeiture was sought pursuant to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(6). We affirm.
On April 17, 1984, police officers entered the apartment of George Terry, in Carrboro, North Carolina, responding to a complaint of a shooting. The police found another man lying dead on the floor and arrested Terry on the scene. After Terry was taken to jail under suspicion of first degree murder, he contacted Steven A. Bernholz, an attorney. Bernholz came to the police station, agreed to represent Terry, and discussed his fee retainer. Terry told Bernholz he had about $12,000 in cash in his apartment which could be used as a retainer for legal services and gave the attorney permission to take the money from the apartment.
Later that day, Bernholz was denied entry to Terry's apartment because the police had secured a search warrant. The search was conducted that evening and revealed drugs, drug paraphernalia, a customer list and approximately $12,000 in cash. The next day, Bernholz was informed that drugs were found in the search. He subsequently obtained a written statement from Terry indicating that he had assigned the funds to Bernholz.
After some discussion with the assistant district attorney and the Carrboro Police Chief, Bernholz went to the police station on April 19, 1984, to gain possession of the money. Moments before his arrival at the station, $10,693.34 of the cash was confiscated by the Drug Enforcement Agency as proceeds of drug trafficking. The remaining $1,460 had been taken into custody by the North Carolina Department of Revenue.
Bernholz represented Terry on the first degree murder charge until it was dismissed. 1 On May 24, 1984, the government filed a complaint in the district court for civil forfeiture in rem of the $10,694 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881. On June 5, 1984, Bernholz filed a claim for that money. Sitting without a jury, the court found that Terry had assigned the funds to Bernholz and that the assignment took place prior to the search revealing drugs. The court held that forfeiture was not proper because at the time of assignment, Bernholz had no actual knowledge that the money was derived from drug proceeds.
On appeal, the government contends that the district court erred in applying an actual knowledge standard in determining whether the fee retainer should be forfeited. It argues that the proper inquiry should focus upon whether the attorney knew or should have known that the money was derived from drug proceeds. Furthermore, it contends that the district court's finding that the assignment occurred on April 17, 1984, was clearly erroneous.
Assuming that the government has preserved for appeal the issue of whether the district court erred in applying an actual knowledge standard in determining whether the fee retainer should be forfeited, 2 we find no merit in it. The "innocent owner" provision, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(6), applies in cases of civil forfeiture. It provides that:
... no property shall be forfeited ... to the extent of the interest of an owner, by reason of any act of omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.
There is nothing in the plain language of Sec. 881(a)(6) requiring courts to look to the objective rather than subjective knowledge of the owner when determining whether forfeiture is proper. Moreover, in the only decision which has addressed this issue, the Eleventh Circuit construed the knowledge standard in Sec. 881(a)(6) to be subjective. United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Dollars
...of the innocent owner defense “turns on the claimant's actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge”); United States v. $10,694.00 in U.S. Currency, 828 F.2d 233, 234–35 (4th Cir.1987), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Walker, 889 F.2d 1317 (4th Cir.1989) (stating that “ § 881......
-
U.S. v. One Parcel of Land Located at 7326 Highway 45 North, Three Lakes, Oneida County, Wis.
...States v. Real Property & Improvements Located at 5000 Palmetto Drive, 928 F.2d 373, 375 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. $10,694 U.S. Currency, 828 F.2d 233, 234-35 (4th Cir.1987); Four Million Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand, 762 F.2d at 906. 2 Accordingly, if Modernaire shows that it ha......
-
United States v. 3,497.72 in U.S. Currency
...of the innocent owner defense “turns on the claimant's actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge”); United States v. $10,694.00 in U.S. Currency, 828 F.2d 233, 234–35 (4th Cir.1987) (stating that “§ 881(a)(6) envisions an actual knowledge inquiry”), overruled on other grounds by United S......
-
U.S. v. Japanese Rifle
...the burden of proof, "it is the claimant's responsibility to prove the absence of actual knowledge." United States v. $10,694.00 US. Currency, 828 F.2d 233, 234-35 (4th Cir.1987) (quoting United States v. $4,255,000, 762 F.2d 895, 907 (11th Cir.1985)). If a claimant fails to carry this evid......
-
Clearing the smoke from the battlefield: understanding congressional intent regarding the innocent owner provision of 21 U.S.C. 881(a) (7).
...1561 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. 7326 Highway 45 N., 965 F.2d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. $10,694.00 U.S. Currency, 828 F.2d 233, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1987); United States v. Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, 762 F.2d 895 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. 884......