U.S. v. One Lot of U.S. Currency Totalling $14,665
| Decision Date | 02 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 97-12636-NG.,Civ.A. 97-12636-NG. |
| Citation | 33 F.Supp.2d 47 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ONE LOT OF U.S. CURRENCY TOTALLING $14,665, Manuel J. Espinola, Claimant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Shelbey D. Wright, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for United States of America, plaintiff.
Blaine J. DeFreitas, Maynard, MA, for $14,665.00 in United States Currency, defendant, Manuel Espinola, claimant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND ...................................................................50
II. DISCUSSION ...................................................................51
A. Summary Judgment Standard ................................................51
B. Probable Cause under the Forfeiture Law ..................................52
C. Analysis .................................................................53
1. Espinola's Possession of $14,665 in Cash is Consistent with this Story .......53
2. The Cash Purchase of the Airplane Ticket is not Suspicious in these
Circumstances ..............................................................54
3. The Use of Rubber Bands to Bind the Cash has Limited Probative
Value ......................................................................54
4. Espinola's Demeanor When Stopped by the Security Guards was not
Suspicious..................................................................54
5. Espinola's Inability to Open his Briefcase adds Little to the Probable
Cause Analysis .............................................................55
6. Espinola's Story about the Source of the Money is Reasonable and
was Largely Confirmed ......................................................56
7. Espinola's Las Vegas Plans were Plausible ....................................57
8. The Positive Alert by the Narcotics Dog, even if Credited, adds Little
in these Circumstances .....................................................57
9. Claimant was never Arrested or Convicted in Connection with these
Circumstances, nor does he have a Criminal Record ..........................58
10. Claimant was not Dishonest with the Police ...................................59
11. The Length of Espinola's Stay in Las Vegas Supports his Story ................59
IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................60
In this civil forfeiture proceeding arising under 21 U.S.C. § 881, the government seeks forfeiture of $14,665 in U.S. currency that it claims was associated with drug trafficking. Claimant Manuel J. Espinola ("Espinola"), from whom the money was seized, moves for summary judgment, asserting that his interrogation violated the Fourth Amendment, and that, in any case, the government has failed to establish probable cause to institute forfeiture proceedings. The government has cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that it has already met its burden of showing probable cause, and that Espinola has failed to refute it.
Even in the byzantine world of forfeiture law, this case is an example of overreaching. The government's showing of probable cause is completely inadequate, based on a troubling mix of baseless generalizations, leaps of logic or worse, blatant ethnic stereotyping.
The government presents a slightly nervous young man, carrying $14,665 in cash, en route to Las Vegas to find a new home. The man accurately reported his identity and prior to the initiation of forfeiture proceedings, largely confirmed his employment. No criminal charges were brought; indeed, the young man had no criminal record of any kind. The circumstances of the case barely cross the threshold of suspiciousness, let alone probable cause to believe that the money meets the standards for forfeiture.
Forfeitures, the seizure of a citizen's property, are "strong medicine, disfavored in our jurisprudence." U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property, 964 F.2d 1244, 1248 (1st Cir.1992). The possession of cash, even in large amounts, does not create a rebuttable presumption that one is engaged in criminal activity. U.S. v. $36,634, 103 F.3d 1048, 1055 n. 9 (1st Cir.1997). To do so would be to put at risk virtually anyone who does not bother to carry "appropriate" documentation for their cash. This would be especially so for those citizens who are already the most vulnerable — minorities, the young, and the poor.
Neither the courts nor Congress are empowered to suspend the Constitution so that the government may more effectively wage the war on drugs. See, e.g. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 439, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). A democracy, after all, does not require that its citizens explain themselves, their plans, and their intentions to the government, absent lawful justification carefully considered. And it certainly does not permit the seizure of a citizen's property, as here, without probable cause. To find probable cause in these circumstances would require me to cast these concerns to the wind. This I cannot do.
Espinola's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.1 The government's cross motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
The claimant, Manuel J. Espinola, does not contest any of the facts that are set out in the affidavit of Stephen G. Lynch ("Lynch"), the Massachusetts state trooper who seized the currency. The facts set forth below are thus taken entirely from Lynch's affidavit.
According to Lynch's affidavit, on November 7, 1996, Lynch and another trooper, who were stationed at Boston's Logan airport, responded to a call from a security agent at the America West/Delta Shuttle security checkpoint. Upon arriving at the checkpoint, the troopers met with the security agent, Lilian Pineda of Argenbright Security Co., who told them the following: At approximately 7:45 a.m., a passenger, later identified as the claimant, approached the security checkpoint and placed his bags on the belt of the x-ray machine. The x-ray image of one of his bags, a black briefcase, showed a "dark block" that caused the security guards to be concerned. Pineda asked Espinola to open the bag. According to Pineda, Espinola became nervous and asked why he had to open the bag.
Initially, neither Espinola nor his travelling companion, later identified as his brother, could remember the combination to the briefcase. At some point, however, Espinola managed to get it open, and Pineda saw two large bundles of cash inside lying under some papers. Pineda informed Espinola that she would have to contact the state police. She reported that Espinola responded by becoming more nervous and upset, asking,
The troopers arrived and discussed the situation with Pineda. She identified Espinola, who was waiting in the check point area. Officer Lynch approached Espinola, identified himself, and asked to see some identification. Espinola showed him a driver's license with his name on it, a 1973 birthdate, and a Tewksbury, Massachusetts, address. Lynch then asked to see Espinola's ticket. Espinola handed him a roundtrip ticket to Las Vegas, Nevada, that included a return date the following Monday, November 11. The ticket had been purchased with $505.50 in cash that morning.
When questioned about the money in the briefcase, Espinola told Lynch that he believed that there was $15,000 in the two bundles, and that it was money that he and his brother had made working for a company called Equinox International. Espinola did not have a business card identifying himself as an employee of Equinox International, nor could he remember its telephone number.
Lynch then asked Espinola where he had been keeping the money prior to that morning. Espinola responded that he had been keeping it at home because he was concerned about a prior problem with a bank account, and was afraid that a bank might attach his money for repayment.
Finally, Lynch asked Espinola what the money was to be used for. Espinola stated that he was planning to move to Las Vegas, and intended to use the cash as a down payment on a place to live. He did not know the name of the realtor with whom he was dealing, but stated that he had gotten the name from a cab driver the last time that he was in Las Vegas. Espinola stated that he had "just decided for sure" the night before to move to Las Vegas, but had been thinking about moving for a couple of weeks. Espinola stated that he intended to put a down payment on a place to live, return to Boston the following Monday, and then drive out to Las Vegas with his brother and the remainder of their belongings.
Espinola gave the name of a friend and fellow salesperson at Equinox International Mike Jasilewicz, who he was planning to meet once he arrived. He did not have a telephone number for the friend, but gave Lynch a "beeper" number for him.
After hearing this explanation, Lynch removed the money from the briefcase and examined it. It consisted mostly of twenty and fifty dollar bills, wrapped in bundles with several rubber bands on each end.
Lynch informed Espinola that he was seizing the money because he believed it was to be used for the purchase of illegal substances. He explained that Espinola was not under arrest, and that the money would be counted and turned over to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Lynch explained to Espinola that, if he wished, he could accompany him back to the police barracks and obtain a receipt for the money, and information on the procedure to follow if he wanted to file a claim to have the money returned. Espinola accompanied Lynch back to the barracks.
At the barracks, the money was counted and determined to be the sum of $14,745. Espinola received and signed a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. $242,484.00, No. 01-16485.
...their testimony before trial. The expert opinion Dr. Rose gave on the subject in another case is referred to in United States v. $14,665, 33 F.Supp.2d 47, 58 n. 9 (D.Mass.1998). Stanford's objection also prevented Rambo's trainer from testifying about what he had been taught on the subject ......
-
Deschenes v. State
...appellant was carrying a large amount of currency in their luggage, which could be robbed or lost); United States v. One Lot of U.S. Currency ($14,665), 33 F.Supp.2d 47, 55 (D.Mass.1998)(noting that appellant's nervousness during interaction with law enforcement officers "is not an unreason......
-
U.S. v. Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars & No Cents, CV-00600
...nervous or agitated when detained by police officers. E.g., United States v. One Lot of United States Currency ($14,665), Page 227 33 F. Supp.2d 47, 55 (D. Mass. 1998) (noting that claimant's nervousness during interaction with law enforcement officers "is not an unreasonable response, rega......
-
United States v. $100,000 in U.S. Currency
...that such illegal activity was in fact the exchange of a controlled substance."). Compare United States v. One Lot of U.S. Currency Totalling $14,665 , 33 F.Supp.2d 47, 59 (D. Mass. 1998) (finding that the claimant had "no criminal record of any kind for drug activity, nor for that matter a......