U.S. v. $93,685.61 in U.S. Currency

• Decision Date: 10 April 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-3861,83-3861
• Citation: 730 F.2d 571
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. $93,685.61 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant, Benjamin Lonzo Willis, Claimant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 571

730 F.2d 571

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. $93,685.61 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant Benjamin Lonzo Willis, Claimant-Appellee.

No. 83-3861.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 9, 1984.

Decided April 10, 1984.

James J. McLaughlin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellant.

James L. Collins, Portland, Or., for claimant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

Before SCHROEDER, FARRIS and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The government appeals a district court's grant of summary judgment to the claimant in a currency forfeiture case. The judgment was based on a conclusion that the government had failed to meet its burden of showing probable cause to institute forfeiture proceedings. This proceeding originated in an arrest of a drug dealer by Drug Enforcement Administration agents and the subsequent interception of a package sent to him. Inside the package were cocaine, heroin and items of false identification, including a birth certificate with the claimant's fingerprints on it. Agents obtained a search warrant and searched claimant's house. In an office-garage they found bullets, powder scales, glassine bags, and a zip-loc bag with cocaine residue in it that had been thrown into a wood stove. In the same room they found $90,185 in a floor safe and $3,500.61 in a box.

The government sued for forfeiture of the money under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(6), alleging that it "had been furnished and was intended to be furnished in exchange for heroin and cocaine." The government contended that probable cause for forfeiture existed based on the following: (a) an anonymous tip to a Drug Enforcement Administration agent that the claimant was engaged in drug transactions currently; (b) claimant's documented involvement in drug transactions in 1978; (c) claimant's fingerprints on the intercepted birth certificate; (d) the fact that the amount of cash found in a search of claimant's home was so large; (e) the drug paraphernalia found in the same room as the money; (f) absence of evidence during the search that the claimant engaged in any legitimate employment; (g) claimant's failure to file tax returns; (h) rifles found in claimant's house.

The government can show probable cause for a belief that the currency is subject to forfeiture based on a reasonable ground for belief that the currency was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for drugs. This belief must be more than mere suspicion, but can be created by less than prima facie proof. United States v. One 56-Foot Yacht Named Tahuna, 702 F.2d 1276, 1281-82 (9th Cir.1983). We review the district court's probable cause determination in a forfeiture proceeding as a question of law. United States v. One Twin Engine Beech Airplane, 533 F.2d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir.1976).

The district court erred when it found an insufficient showing of probable cause in this case. Circumstantial evidence of drug transactions is sufficient to support the establishment of probable cause in a forfeiture proceeding. United States v. $364,960 in United States Currency, 661 F.2d 319, 324 (5th Cir.1981). The aggregate of facts in this case gives rise to "more than mere suspicion" that the currency was furnished or intended to be furnished...