U.S. v. Brock, 83-1533
| Decision Date | 06 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1533,83-1533 |
| Citation | 747 F.2d 761 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. John BROCK, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Dennis M. Hart, Washington, D.C., with whom Kenneth Michael Robinson, Washington D.C., was on the brief, for appellant. W. Gary Kohlman, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for appellant.
Robert E.L. Eaton, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., Royce C. Lamberth and R. Craig Lawrence, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before TAMM and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a successful action by the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881 to forfeit certain assorted gold and silver watches and jewelry that were seized in the District of Columbia pursuant to a "Seizure Warrant" duly issued on a showing of probable cause by the United States Magistrate on May 21, 1981. (App. 20). The jewelry was valued at approximately $120,000. The seizure warrant was issued on the basis of the affidavit of a Special Agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration. This affidavit stated that a large quantity of property including, inter alia, several premises, Rolls-Royce and Mercedes-Benz automobiles, and the jewelry, were believed to be proceeds traceable to exchanges of controlled substances prohibited by 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841, 846, 952, and 963. (App. 30). The jewelry had been located and seized during the earlier execution of search warrants issued by the District of Columbia Superior Court. (App. 22, p 4). It was found concealed in a bag in the attic of the premises searched. Id. Amounts of narcotics, money, a loaded .357 Magnum revolver, and equipment necessary for the sale and distribution of narcotics were found in a different room of the same premises. Id.
This is an in rem action against the jewelry. The provisions of law relating to seizure and forfeiture for violation of the customs laws govern this action. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(d). Initially, the government need only demonstrate probable cause that such property was involved as alleged in violations of the narcotics statutes. 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1615. If the government demonstrates probable cause, the burden is on the claimant of the property to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was not involved in violations of the narcotics laws so as to render it forfeit. Id.
The bench trial of the forfeiture action proceeded with the entry into evidence of the Agent's affidavit, mentioned above, in lieu of live testimony. (App. 76-77). Counsel for appellant then cross-examined the Agent about the basis for the assertions in the affidavit. (App. 80-90). The affidavit asserted that Brock had been engaged in the sale of narcotics since 1977. It recounted the statement of a reliable informant to the effect that he had never known Brock, the claimant of the jewelry, to have a legitimate occupation or employment and that Brock's only source of income from 1977 to 1981 was from his heroin trafficking activities. (App. 26, p 13). The affidavit also averred to the location of the jewelry when discovered, secreted in the attic of one of the premises that was searched, and detailed the other items found in the same premises, namely the narcotics, money, the revolver, and paraphernalia for distribution of narcotics. There was no direct evidence to connect the jewelry with the claimant's alleged narcotics activities. The court concluded that the requisite probable cause had been shown. (App. 80).
The circumstances were sufficient to warrant a conclusion that there was no other way Brock could have acquired the jewelry than in connection with or by the proceeds of the alleged narcotics violations. (App. 88-89). The district court record reveals that over 100 pieces of jewelry were seized, including earrings, rings,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Miscellaneous Jewelry
...concludes that the Government has made the requisite showing of probable cause to support the forfeiture. See, e.g., United States v. Brock, 747 F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir.1984) (circumstantial evidence of drug transactions and the fact that claimant had no source of legitimate income for several y......
-
Bazuaye v. U.S.
...doubt. These facts, some of which Bazuaye explicitly concedes, supplied Clark with probable cause. Cf. United States v. Brock, 747 F.2d 761, 762-63 (D.C.Cir.1984) (jewelry must have been acquired with drug proceeds); United States v. $250,000, 808 F.2d 895, 898-900 (1st Cir.1987) (governmen......
-
United States v. $1,071,251.44 of Funds Associated With Mingzheng Int'l Trading Ltd.
...659 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting that claimants appealed from grant of summary judgment in favor of government); United States v. Brock , 747 F.2d 761, 762 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (claimants appealed after judgment in bench trial); United States v. $21,510 in U.S. Currency , 292 F.Supp.2d ......
-
People v. $497,590 U.S. Currency
...Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 895, 904 [nothing in the statute requires evidence of a particular narcotics transaction]; United States v. Brock (D.C.Cir.1984) 747 F.2d 761, 762-763 [while "[t]here was no direct evidence to connect the jewelry with the claimant's alleged narcotics activities," the cour......