U.S.A v. Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-six ($17,466.00) Dollars In United States Currency
| Decision Date | 29 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | CASE No. 2:09-cv-887-MEF |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, v. SEVENTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX ($17,466.00) DOLLARS IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, DEFENDANT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
In this action for Forfeiture In Rem pursuant to Title II of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., the United States seeks to forfeit and condemn seventeen thousand four hundred sixty-six dollars ($17,466.00) in United States currency seized during the arrest of Federico Vieyra-Garcia ("Garcia") for trafficking illegal drugs. The sole claimant before this Court is Shelia Delgado-Solis ("Solis"), Garcia's wife. This cause is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment. See Doc. # 17 and Doc. # 21. The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Solis' motion is due to be DENIED and the United States of America's motion is due to be GRANTED.
Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355.1 Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1395 and 21 U.S.C. § 881(j) because the act or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred in this district and the property is located within this district.
On February 19, 2009, agents from the Montgomery Resident Office, initiated a Title III investigation on a drug trafficking organization with activities in Alabama, Illinois, North Carolina, and elsewhere. During the investigation, agents identified Garcia as a distributor for the organization. The investigation identified Garcia's residence located at 3605 County Road 47, Lot 4, Verbena, Alabama, as a stash house for the organization. As a result of further investigation, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Garcia and others on April 21, 2009.
On April 30, 2009, Commander Todd Mims, with the Central Alabama Drug Task Force, obtained a state search warrant for Garcia's residence in Verbena. Agents conducted surveillance of the Verbena address. They saw Garcia at the residence and observed vehicles parked at the residence that were registered to Garcia. On May 1, 2009, agents from the Montgomery Resident Office, the Chilton County Sheriff's Office, and the Central Alabama Drug Task Force, executed the state search warrant at 3605 County Road 47, Lot 4, Verbena, Alabama. They intended to arrest Garcia if he was there, but he was not present. They did seize one and one half kilograms of cocaine HCL and three bricks of marijuana during this search. They also observed three vehicles parked at the residence; all three vehicles were registered to Garcia.
Prior to the search of 3605 County Road 47, Lot 4, Verbena, Alabama, agents had learned that Garcia sometimes lived at 115 Colonial Circle, Clanton, Alabama. They proceeded there hoping to locate him for arrest. Garcia was present at this address along with his common-law wife Solis. Agents took Garcia into custody as he was attempting to retrieve a 9mm hand gun from inside the master bedroom.
After Garcia was arrested and advised of his rights, he indicated that he wished to cooperate with agents. Agent Shaw asked Garcia if there were any drugs, currency, or other weapons in the house. Garcia indicated that there were and gave the agents consent to search the residence.
During the search, agents located a total of $ 17, 466.00 in United States Currency from various places within 115 Colonial Circle. There were two vacuum sealed bags of currency, containing $5,000 and $6,000 respectively, located in the bathroom. There was $85.00 in U.S. currency located on the dresser in the master bedroom. A shoe box in the master bedroom closet contained $1,582.00 in U.S. currency. Finally, the agents located $4,800.00 in U.S. currency bound with money bands and wrapped in lingerie in a the master bedroom closet. In addition to the currency, the search also yielded nine firearms, keys to the three vehicles located at 3605 County Road 47, Lot 4, Verbena, Alabama, and a set of keys that opened a shed in the back yard. Garcia indicated that he rented this shed to a couple of Hispanic males, but that he did not know their names. In the shed, agents found approximately a half a kilogram of cocaine HCL, a bottle of GNC Inositol Powder ("Cut"), and a bullet proof vest.
In June of 2009, Solis filed a verified claim in which she indicated that at least $7,000 of the money seized from her home on May 1, 2009 was her money that she had earned from her employment at a grocery store. According to Solis, she was paid $300.00 per week in cash beginning in November of 2005. Along with her verified claim, Solis submitted a form letter signed by her employer confirming her employment at that rate from November 23, 2005 through the date of the search. Garcia filed a verified claim in the Administrative proceeding claiming ownership of approximately $10,500 of the currency seized. Garcia claimed that he earned this currency from his legitimate tree planting business, but the currency was packaged consistently with drug trafficking transactions. Furthermore, Garcia subsequently entered a plea of guilty to charges relating to a narcotics trafficking conspiracy. Garcia has not filed a claim in this action asserting any interest in the U.S. Currency found at 115 Colonial Circle on the date of his arrest.
On June 10, 2010, Solis filed her claim in this action asserting an interest in the U.S. Currency found in the master bedroom closet during the search, but not to any of the other funds. See Doc. # 17-2 at n.1. Solis estimated that the currency in the closet was approximately $7,000, 2 but the undisputed evidence before this Court establishes that the currency in the master bedroom closet was $6,382.00. At her depostion, Solis testified that her money in the closet totaled about $4,000. Solis testified that the money found in the master bedroom closet was money she was saving. Some of this money came from her employment at a grocery store.3 Solis admits, however, that some of the money in the master bedroom closet was money Garcia gave her which is combined with money she earned. Solis denies knowing, prior to Garcia's arrest, that the money Garcia gave her came from illegal drug activities, but she conceded that she did not know where all of Garcia's money came from, including money he gave her. Solis testified that she did know that Garcia was engaged in agricultural work for various farmers and that he had a business involving trees. When asked directly if she knew of any other ways he was earning money prior to his arrest, Solis invoked her rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party asking for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, ' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323. The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing the non-moving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-23.
Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e) "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by [his] own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, ' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324. To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (emphasis added). A plaintiff must present evidence demonstrating that he can establish the basic elements of his claim. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. A court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must believe the evidence of the non-movant and must draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence in the non-moving party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion for summary judgment, the court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
I. Forfeitability
The civil forfeiture statute invoked by the United States in this case operates to allow a court to declare any property which is involved in certain types of illegal transactions to be forfeitable to the government. See United States v. $557,933.89, 287 F.3d 66, 77 (2nd Cir. 2002). The justification for such a law is that such property is either the proceeds of illegal transactions or somehow being used to facilitate illegal transactions. Id. In an action such as this one, the government is the plaintiff and the property is the defendant. Id. at 79. It is the government's right to forfeiture that is the sole cause of action adjudicated. Id. If the government fails to meet its burden of proof, a person with a proper claim to the defendant property may take the property without presenting any evidence. Id.
On April 25, 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset...
To continue reading
Request your trial