U.S. v. Wright, s. 77-1990
| Decision Date | 28 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | 77-1991,Nos. 77-1990,s. 77-1990 |
| Citation | 197 U.S. App. D.C. 411,610 F.2d 930 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Patricia Ann WRIGHT, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Shirley Ann BOYD, a/k/a Kim, a/k/a Lisa, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mary Gallagher, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), for appellants.
John H. Sturc, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Earl J. Silbert, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, Peter E. George and James F. Rutherford, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before MacKINNON and WILKEY, Circuit Judges, and RICHEY, * United
States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MacKINNON.
Acting on a search warrant issued in the name of the "United States District Court for the District of Columbia" by a United States Magistrate, Metropolitan Police officers seized $2,100 and some narcotics and narcotic paraphernalia from appellants during a drug raid. Thereafter appellants were indicted by the United States grand jury for one United States and one District of Columbia drug offense. The latter was a lesser offense. After all charges against appellants arising out of the search were dismissed by the district court, appellants filed a motion asking the district court to order the return of the $2,100. The district court refused, holding that appellants were not entitled to the money. We reverse and remand.
On October 8, 1976, a United States Magistrate signed a warrant issued out of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a search of the premises at 1341 T Street, Northwest. 1 There was probable cause to believe that heroin and narcotics paraphernalia were concealed in the building. The warrant was executed that afternoon by Metropolitan Police who seized drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons and money all of which was listed in the inventory filed on October 12, 1976. 2 Fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) of the money was seized from the person of appellant Patricia Ann Wright and $600 from a dresser in a room "used" by Wright and appellant Shirley Ann Boyd. 3 During the search seven persons present in the building were arrested.
Appellants Wright and Boyd, along with two men, arrested at the time of the search, were charged in an indictment issued by the Grand Jury convened by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (a United States offense) 4 and possession of a narcotic drug (a District of Columbia offense). 5 On January 12, 1977, the Government moved in federal court to dismiss the indictment against appellants apparently on the ground that the Government did not have sufficient evidence to go forward at that time. (Tr. April 19, 1977, 6). The motion was granted. On March 1, 1977, appellants were reindicted for the same crimes and appellants again moved for dismissal of the indictments. On April 19, 1977, the indictment was again dismissed, with prejudice.
Appellants then renewed their motion in the United States District Court, which had originally been made when the first indictment was dismissed, for return of the money ($1500 and $600) seized during the October 8, 1976 raid. On September 28, 1977, a hearing was held in federal district court on the motion to return the property.
At the hearing on the motion appellants' only witness was Metropolitan Police Detective Budai who had obtained the warrant and had participated with others in the October 8th search, seizure and arrests. He testified as follows: The $1500 was taken from Patricia Wright's "pocket," 6 "off her person," 7 while she was in the "bathroom or hallway." 8 The $600 was taken from the "dresser" 9 in the second floor bedroom that Boyd and Wright said they "stayed in" 10 and "used." 11 The $600 was "found in the bedroom with her (Wright)." 12 Detective Budai also testified that "inside the same room as the money ($600) . . . there was narcotics paraphernalia . . . strainers, measuring spoons, tinfoil, cutting board . . . (that) would be used to dilute narcotics, heroin . . . (f)or cutting and distribution." 13
Appellants rested their case on the testimony of Detective Budai. They had been indicted later for other offenses, and neither appellant testified apparently because each desired to avoid cross-examination because of the subsequent indictments or the threat thereof. Wright's attorney made the very plausible contention:
It seems to me quite plain that if somebody seizes money out of somebody's pocket, that not much further inquiry is necessary.
This money was taken from her (Wright's) pocket and every presumption must be that it belonged to her and I don't see any need for her to take the stand.
Tr. 21. The theory of Boyd's attorney was similar:
We are going . . . on the officer's testimony that money was seized from her room and that Miss Boyd indicated that she and Miss Wright stayed there, we submit that this should be sufficient evidence at this time of ownership of these funds and we are prepared to stand on his testimony. . . . we are prepared to submit on the claim of ownership based on the officer's testimony that he seized the money from the room where she indicated she stayed at these premises.
We believe that the Government has not met its burden to show in the light of the decision of the Circuit Court in the case of Ruben Wilson v. the United States that these are either proceeds of crime or contraband and we would ask the Court to sign an appropriate order returning the money to Miss Boyd.
Tr. 20, 23. Miss Wright "joined" in Boyd's argument.
The Government broadly contended that the court could conclude the money was the "proceeds of . . . crime" because there was "narcotics activity . . . at that house by one of the defendants who was claiming the money," Tr. 18, and because "The money was found along with narcotics paraphernalia and cutting material." Tr. 23 (emphasis added). Such relationship is too tenuous.
The district court denied appellants' motions. It noted that (1) "three individuals were convicted" for Subsequent narcotics offenses involving the same premises, Tr. 24-25; (2) "there was a substantial amount of money and large amounts of narcotics found in the premises . . . where these two ladies were arrested" Tr. 25; and (3) appellants filed affidavits of indigency in order to obtain attorneys under the Criminal Justice Act, Tr. 25-26. The court concluded that "(u)nder all of the circumstances here I cannot hold that these two ladies were owners of that money found in the house." 14
Wright and Boyd appeal from that decision. The Government urges us to affirm the district court not only because they assert appellants are not entitled to the money, but also because the district court allegedly lacks jurisdiction to order it returned.
The Government now contends for the first time in this case that the District Court lacks jurisdiction to order return of the money. First, the Government contends that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Second, the Government maintains that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the person holding the property, so that "any order by the District Court to release the money to appellants would be a nullity." 15 We reject both of these arguments.
In United States v. Wilson, 176 U.S.App.D.C. 321, 540 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1976), we ruled that in such circumstances the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to order return of the money. Wilson pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it. He then moved for return of over two thousand dollars that had been seized by the Metropolitan Police pursuant to a United States Magistrate's search warrant issued out of the United States District Court. 16 The Government opposed the motion, and it was denied by the district court. We reversed and ordered the money returned, saying:
(I)t is fundamental to the integrity of the criminal justice process that property involved in the proceeding, against which no Government claim lies, be returned promptly to its rightful owner. Therefore, the district court has both the jurisdiction and duty to return such property. 17
Wilson is consistent with the decisions of every circuit that has considered this issue. In United States v. Premises Known as 608 Taylor Avenue, 584 F.2d 1297 (3d Cir. 1978), which involved a motion (filed before any criminal charges were brought) for return of lawfully seized money, the court stated: "If the government's retention is unreasonable considering all circumstances, the district court as a matter of its supervisory powers should order the return of the seized property." 18 The Sixth Circuit, citing Wilson also stated in United States v. LaFatch, 565 F.2d 81, 83 (6th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 971, 98 S.Ct. 1611, 56 L.Ed.2d 62 (1978):
(1, 2) The general rule is that seized property, other than contraband, should be returned to its rightful owner once criminal proceedings have terminated.
. . . the interests of judicial efficiency dictate that the problem should be resolved by the criminal trial court. 19
And in United States v. Palmer, 565 F.2d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir. 1977), the Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to return to appellant, after his conviction for bank robbery, $763 seized from him at the time of his arrest. The court stated:
We conclude that in absence of any cognizable claim of ownership or right to possession adverse to that of appellant, the district court should have granted appellant's motion and returned to him the money taken from him by government seizure. 20
In short, these cases settled the law that a federal district court has post-conviction jurisdiction on motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Hubbard
...S.Ct. 1642, 1650, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967).25 United States v. Wilson, 540 F.2d 1100, 1103 (D.C.Cir.1976), quoted in United States v. Wright, 610 F.2d 930, 934 (D.C.Cir.1979).26 Property lawfully seized may be retained pending exhaustion of its utility in criminal prosecutions. See United Stat......
-
U.S. v. $515,060.42 in U.S. Currency
...at 1473 n. 5 (collecting cases); United States v. 1982 Sanger 24' Spectra Boat, 738 F.2d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Wright, 610 F.2d 930, 939 (D.C.Cir.1979). However, due to concerns about "straw man" transfers, "naked possession" claims are insufficient to establish standi......
-
Citadel Management, Inc. v. Telesis Trust, Inc.
...831, 40 L.Ed. 1002 (1896) ("possession is prima facie evidence of some kind of rightful ownership or title."); United States v. Wright, 610 F.2d 930, 939 (D.C.Cir.1979). Where, as here, the funds were transferred "for the benefit of ... Equal ..., free and clear of all liens, interests, cha......
-
Blum v. Koch
...(presented by the government or adverse claimants) to doubt a person's Blum's right to the property seized," United States v. Wright, 610 F.2d 930, 939 & n. 39 (2d Cir.1979), and City Defendants continue to occupy the unenviable position of middlemen. Blum's contention that City Defendants'......