United States v. $115,413.00 in U.S. Currency
| Decision Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 5:20-CV-539-D |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. $115,413.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
On June 3,2020, law enforcement officers at Raleigh-Durham International Airport (“RDU”) seized $115,413.00 in currency that Ramon L. Lyon (“Lyon” or “claimant”) attempted to smuggle onto a plane bound for Los Angeles, California. On October 9,2020, the United States filed a civil action in rem under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) [D.E. 1]. Section 881(a)(6) permits the forfeiture of currency “furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance” in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, proceeds traceable to such an exchange, or currency used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). On November 29,2021, Lyon answered the government's complaint [D.E. 36].
On June 24,2022, Lyon moved to suppress “any and all physical objects, pre-detention and post-detention statements of Lyon and any and all other physical evidence” which the government obtained “as a result the illegal extension of the stop, illegal interrogation, illegal detention of Lyon, and the illegal search and seizure of certain items by the government, all in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution....” [D.E 43]; [D.E. 44] 18-30. On July 12, 2022, Lyon moved for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress [D.E. 46]. On September 6,2022, the government responded in opposition to Lyon's motion to suppress [D.E. 54]. On November 4,2022, Lyon replied [D.E. 63].
On February 8,2023, the court held an evidentiary hearing on Lyon's motion to suppress [D.E. 70-74]. The court has reviewed the entire record and assessed the credibility of the witnesses. The court enters these findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(1). Lyon was not a credible witness. In contrast, the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) and law enforcement officials testified credibly. As explained below the court denies Lyon's motion to suppress.
On June 3,2020, at approximately 5:29 a.m., Lyon entered a TSA security screening area at RDU. See [D.E. 44] 4; [D.E. 54] 5-6. Lyon had smoked marijuana earlier that morning. See Hearing Tr. [D.E. 73] 85,102-04. At the security screening area, Transportation Security Officer (“TSO”) James Adams (“TSO Adams”) x-rayed Lyon's bag. See [D.E. 44] 4; [D.E. 54] 5-6; Adams Tr. [D.E. 74] 3-9. Upon x-raying Lyon's bag, TSO Adams noted large organic masses in Lyon's bag and alerted TSO Renu Singh (“TSO Singh”) to open and inspect Lyon's bag. See [D.E. 44] 4; [D.E. 54] 6; Hearing Tr. at 8-10. Within 30 seconds, TSO Singh pulled Lyon's bag to open and inspect it. See [D.E. 44] 4; [D.E. 54] 6; Hearing Tr. at 10-14. The parties agree that TSA agents did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they opened and inspected Lyon's bag because screening passengers and their carry on bags at the airport is a valid administrative search. See Elec. Priv. Info, Ctr. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 653 F.3d 1, 10-11 (D.C. Cir. 2011); United States v. Aukai. 497 F.3d 955,962-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 177-81 (3d Cir. 2006) (Alito, J.); United States v. DeAngelo, 584 F.2d 46,47-48 (4th Cir. 1978); United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 499-501 (2d Cir. 1974) (Friendly, J.); see also City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32,47-48 (2000) (); Chandlery. Miller. 520 U.S. 305,323 (1997) (same); Nat. Treasury Emp. Union v. Van Raab, 489 U.S. 656,675 n.3 (1989) (same).
In the bag, TSO Singh found some loose currency. Under the bottom lining of Lyon's bag, TSO Singh found several unidentified masses artfully concealed. See [D.E. 44] at 4-5; [D.E. 54] 2,6; Hearing Tr. at 10-14. TSO Singh could not tell if there was anything in the wrapped objects that could endanger an aircraft, such as sheet explosives.[1] Some of the masses were wrapped in rubber bands, some were wrapped in newspaper or magazine pages, and some were in vacuum sealed bags. See [D.E. 44] 8; [D.E. 54] 2,6-7; Hearing Tr. at 10-14.
TSO Singh suspected potential criminal activity due to the quantity, packaging, and concealment of the masses. See [D.E. 44] 4; [D.E. 54] 2,6-7; Hearing Tr. at 14-15. Thus, TSO Singh alerted her supervisor, TSO Ballesteros. See [D.E. 44] 4; [D.E. 54] 2, 6-7; Hearing Tr. at 14-15. After assessing the same artfully concealed masses in Lyon's bag, TSO Ballesteros also suspected criminal activity. See [D.E. 44] 4; [D.E. 54] 2, 6-7; Hearing Tr. at 23-26. TSO Ballesteros asked Lyon what was in the packaging, and Lyon said cash. Hearing Tr. at 23-24. TSO Ballesteros did not open the packaging, could not tell what was inside, suspected criminal activity, and contacted APD Officer John Pegram (“Officer Pegram”), who was ten feet away. See id. at 23-28,43.
At approximately 5:33 a.m., Officer Pegram arrived at the security screening area. See [D.E. 44] 4; [D.E. 46] 2; [D.E. 54-7] 1-2; Hearing Tr. at 25, 43-44. After inspecting the bag and suspecting criminal activity, Officer Pegram asked Lyon what was in the packaging, and Lyon said $6,000 cash. Hearing Tr. at 43-46. Officer Pegram was not sure what was in the packaging and had never seen money packaged that way, but he had seen drugs packaged that way. Id. at 45-46. Officer Pegram requested assistance with Lyon's bag from another nearby APD officer, Officer Rodney Alwang (“Officer Alwang”). See id, at 47-49; [D.E. 44] 4; [D.E. 46] 2; [D.E. 54-7] 1-2. While waiting for Officer Alwang to arrive, Officer Pegram asked for Lyon's driver's license, and Lyon gave it to him. Hearing Tr. at 49-50. At no time did Officer Pegram tell Lyon that he was being detained or arrested. Id. at 50-51.
At approximately 5:34 a.m., Officer Alwang arrived and spoke with Officer Pegram. Id. at 66-67. Officer Alwang told Lyon that Lyon could either leave the area without the bag or remain with the bag while they investigated. See [D.E. 54] 1-2,5-17; [D.E. 54-7] 2-3; Hearing Tr. at 71. Lyon chose to stay with his bag. See Hearing Tr. at 71. When Officer Alwang spoke with Lyon, he detected the odor of marijuana on Lyon and emanating from Lyon's bag. See Hearing Tr. at 85, 102-03; Gov. Ex. 39. Officer Alwang, Officer Pegram, TSO Chris John (“TSO John”), and Lyon then walked to a nearby office for security reasons and discretion. See [D.E. 54] 1-2,5-17; [D.E. 54-7] 2-3; Gov. Ex. 39 at 5:34; Hearing Tr. at 36-37,62. Officer Alwang credibly testified that for situations involving suspected criminal activity, he takes the item out of public view for the public's safety and discretion. See Hearing Tr. at 62.
At approximately 5:34 a.m., Officer Alwang, Officer Pegram, TSO John, and Lyon entered a nearby office. See Gov. Ex. 39; Hearing Tr. at 36-37. Once in the nearby office, Officer Alwang used his cell phone to photograph Lyon's driver's license. Hearing Tr. at 72. Officer Alwang then placed Lyon's driver's license on the table in front of Lyon. Id. at 72-73. Officer Alwang then searched a database for any outstanding wants or warrants. See [D.E. 46] 2; [D.E. 46-2]; [D.E. 54] 17. Officer Alwang discovered no wants or warrants but noticed Lyon's extensive criminal history, including Lyon's multiple drug-trafficking convictions. See [D.E. 46] 2; [D.E. 46-2]; [D.E. 54] 17. While Officer Alwang checked Lyon's information, Lyon sat casually in the office, used his phone, and talked to the other officers. See Gov. Ex. 39. Lyon's driver's license was always in his sight and within arms length on the table in front of him. See id. Lyon used the table for other items, including his wallet and his phone. See id.
At approximately 5:35 a.m., Officer Alwang learned that Lyon was traveling to Los Angeles, California, and he had purchased his airline ticket the day before. See id. At approximately 5:35 a.m., APD officers also learned that Lyon had no return flight from Los Angeles, no hotel reservation or other place to stay upon landing in Los Angeles, and no checked luggage. See [D.E. 46] 3; [D.E. 54] 1-2,11-14; [D.E. 65] Manually Filed Ex. 13; Hearing Tr. at 107-09.
At approximately 5:36 a.m., Officer Alwang asked for Lyon's consent to search his bag. See Gov. Ex. 39. APD Officer Davis explained to Lyon that if he cooperated and his story checked out, Lyon could keep the currency in addition to his bag but that even if he did not cooperate and his story did not check out, Lyon was still free to go but the officers would keep the currency. See id.; Hearing Tr. at 80-81.
Lyon consented to the search of his bag, and Officer Alwang began the consent search of Lyon's bag at 5:39 a.m. See id.; Hearing Tr. at 85. At the outset of the search at 5:39 a.m., Officer Alwang exclaimed that Lyon's bag “reeked of marijuana.” See Gov. Ex. 39; Hearing Tr. at 85, 102-04. In response, Lyon told Officer Alwang that he had smoked marijuana that morning. See Gov. Ex. 39; Hearing Tr. at 85,102-04. Officer Alwang then retrieved the packaged items in Lyon's bag and asked Lyon what they contained. Lyon responded that the packages contained currency that he earned from gambling and that he always packaged his money that way. See [D.E. 46] 3; [D.E. 46-2]; Manually Filed Ex. 14 [D.E. 65]. The bag did not contain marijuana. See Hearing Tr. at 86.
At approximately 5:40 a.m., Lyon showed the officers his boarding pass on his phone. See Gov. Ex. 39. Throughout the encounter, Lyon possessed his phone, boarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial