United States v. $119,030.00 in U.S. Currency

Decision Date02 July 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 5:11cv088.
Citation955 F.Supp.2d 569
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. $119,030.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Daniel P. Bubar, Sharon Burnham, United States Attorneys Office, Roanoke, VA, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, District Judge.

This case concerns disputed claims to the ownership of $119,030.00 in United States currency seized by the government during a search following a traffic stop on Interstate 81 in western Virginia. Although the driver of the vehicle, Jonte D. Hamilton (“Hamilton”), denied any knowledge or ownership of the large volume of cash hidden in the rental car at the time of the traffic stop, he now claims it was family money intended to pass to him on his thirtieth birthday. Hamilton's mother, LaVonia A. Cogdell (“Cogdell”), disclaiming any ownership of the money herself, purports to corroborate her son's story. Having reviewed the affidavits filed in this case, the deposition testimony of both Hamilton and Cogdell and the briefs and motions filed by the parties, the court concludes that neither Hamilton nor Cogdell has a possessory or ownership interest in the subject currency. As such, they lack standing to assert a claim to the money. Further, as the government has established by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a substantial connection between the seized property and illegal drug activity, it is forfeited to the United States. Therefore, the government's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. # 13, is GRANTED, and Cogdell's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. # 24, is DENIED.

I.

This is a civil action in rem brought by the United States to forfeit and condemn $119,030.00 in U.S. currency to the use and benefit of the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The United States claims the currency is subject to forfeiture because it was used, or was intended to be used, to facilitate a drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and/or represents proceeds from a violation thereof. Cogdell and her son, Hamilton, filed a claim for the currency, alleging that Cogdell is the legal owner of the currency and Hamilton is the equitable owner of the currency. After deposing Cogdell and Hamilton, the United States filed its Motion to Strike and Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. # 13. Hamilton subsequently filed a Motion to Suppress, Dkt. # 23, and Cogdell has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. # 24. The events giving rise to this case are as follows.

A.

On the evening of January 13, 2011, Virginia State Trooper Joseph Miller (“Trooper Miller”) stopped, upon suspicion of speeding, a rented 2004 Ford Explorer with Maryland license plates. At the time, the vehicle was traveling southbound on Interstate 81 at mile marker 276 in Edinburg, Virginia. Hamilton was driving the vehicle, his friend Moeconi Crutchfield was in the front passenger seat, and David Wright was in the back seat. Trooper Miller noted that the Explorer's rental contract was in Wright's name, and that Hamilton was not listed as an authorized driver. Trooper Miller asked about their travel plans, and Hamilton responded they were traveling from Maryland to Houston, Texas to perform in a rap concert and film a music video. Trooper Miller became suspicious because the rental agreement stated that the car was rented on January 13, 2011, and was due back the night of January 15, 2011, leaving a very short window of time for the claimed music activities in Houston.

According to the affidavit filed by DEA Special Agent Anthony L. Conte, Conte Aff., Dkt. # 1–1, Trooper Miller gave Hamilton a verbal warning for speeding, returned his driver's license to him and told him he was free to leave. Trooper Miller then asked Wright if there was anything illegal in the vehicle or any weapons, drugs, or large amounts of currency. Wright said no. Trooper Miller asked if he could search the vehicle, which request Wright declined. Special Agent Conte's affidavit recites that Trooper Miller had already summoned the assistance of a narcotics canine due to the criminal indicators during the traffic stop. According to Special Agent Conte, Wright did not object to an exterior scan of the vehicle by a drug-sniffing dog. When the drug-sniffing dog positively alerted to the rear passenger side of the vehicle, Trooper Miller began to search the Explorer. Trooper Miller found four cellular telephones in the center console of the Explorer and two briefcases in the back seat. Upon opening one briefcase, Trooper Miller smelled a strong odor of marijuana, but found no illegal drugs in the vehicle. Trooper Miller noticed that several screws holding the tailgate door appeared to have been tooled and that the door panel itself was loose. Behind the door panel, Trooper Miller found $119,030.00 in U.S. currency bundled with rubber bands and wrapped in three separate grocery bags. See Currency Photo, Dkt. # 13–3.

Special Agent Conte's affidavit recounts that Trooper Miller gave the occupants of the Explorer warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and separately questioned them about the currency. None of the three occupants claimed knowledge or ownership of the money. Each of them, including Hamilton, signed an asset disclaimer form, waiving any interest in the cash. When Special Agent Conte arrived on the scene, he further questioned Hamilton. Hamilton reiterated that they were traveling to Houston to film a rap video with a producer he met on Facebook. Hamilton repeated his denial of knowledge or ownership of the currency to Special Agent Conte. Hamilton told Special Agent Conte that he had a prior conviction for marijuana distribution. Special Agent Conte determined there was probable cause to subject the currency to forfeiture, and the currency was seized and placed in the custody of the United States Marshals Service in the Seized Asset Deposit Fund Account.

In his deposition testimony, Hamilton disputes certain of the events described in the Conte affidavit. First, as he was not ticketed with a traffic violation, Hamilton disputes that he was speeding. Hamilton Dep., Dkt. # 13–2, at 42, 58. Hamilton denies that there was any odor of marijuana in the vehicle or that any of the three occupants had smoked marijuana in the Explorer. As such, Hamilton considers the pretext for the traffic stop and search to be fabricated. Id. at 54, 58. Hamilton described Trooper Miller's demeanor as “very aggressive, first off, because after he pulled us over and he said that we was speeding and he smelled marijuana, he asked could he search the car while all our paperwork was getting done, and we specifically said ‘no’ and he did it anyway.” Id. at 53–54. Hamilton stated that he was not given a Miranda warning and was scared because he knew the money was in the car. Id. at 55–56. Hamilton agreed that he told Trooper Miller that he knew nothing of the money and denied ownership of it during the traffic stop. Hamilton said he was nervous, intimidated and scared and signed the form disclaiming any interest in the money because “I just didn't know what else to do. I didn't want to go to jail. I didn't want to ... I just was confused in all honesty.” Id. at 53. Hamilton testified that he was scared during the search [b]ecause I knew the money was in there.” Id. at 56. Hamilton said he was scared both because “I didn't know what my family was going to say,” id. at 55, and because of “the officer.” Id. at 56–57. During his deposition, Hamilton provided more details of his music plans in Houston than the officers indicated he provided. Id. at 24–31. At the same time, however, Hamilton struggled to come up with a credible explanation for the presence of the large quantity of bundled cash hidden in the Explorer's back door panel. Id. at 37–38.

B.

On March 30, 2011, two and one-half months after the seizure of the currency, Hamilton wrote a letter in response to a forfeiture notice from the DEA. Hamilton's letter requested return of the monies, stating that [t]hese funds had been in the family for many years and had been kept in a safe location in Virginia.” Hamilton Claim Letter, Dkt. # 30. Cogdell testified that she actually wrote Hamilton's March 30, 2011 letter, but did not submit her own claim letter at the time because [i]t was his funds ... and he was the one that had it at the time.” Cogdell Dep., Dkt. # 13–5, at 43.

On September 1, 2011, the United States filed a forfeiture complaint. On October 8, 2011, Cogdell and Hamilton jointly filed a written claim to the money. The claim states that LaVonia A. Cogdell is the legal owner of all of the aforesaid currency. Jonte D. Hamilton is the equitable owner of all of the aforesaid currency as he is to receive it upon reaching thirty years of age on 05/06/2012.” Dkt. # 3. After filing their claim, Cogdell and Hamilton were deposed regarding their claim to the subject currency.

In her deposition testimony, Cogdell claims the seized currency was a gift from Alphonzo Brooks (“Brooks”), intended for Cogdell's first-born son, Hamilton. Cogdell described Brooks, a long time companion to Cogdell's grandmother,1 as an entrepreneur who “always had money,” Cogdell Dep., Dkt. # 13–5, at 15–16, garnered from rental property in the District of Columbia and horse breeding in Virginia. Cogdell explained Brooks' motivation for the gift as follows:

And, I remember him telling me ... because I had two daughters first, that when I had my son, that because he didn't have a son, he himself had a daughter, he would leave him a gift.

Id. at 11. When Brooks made this passing reference to Cogdell in the late 1970's, Cogdell “actually thought it was a joke” because she did not have a son at the time. Id. at 14. No amount of money was specified, nor was anything written down to memorialize Brooks' statement. Id. at 14, 18, 33. Several years...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Pooler v. Wilson, No. 2:19-cv-3347-DCN
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 3 Abril 2020
    ... ... No. 2:19-cv-3347-DCN United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston ... discovered and seized $104,596.00 in cash (the "currency"), in small bills, bound together with rubber bands, and ... ...
  • United States v. $16,761 in U.S. Currency
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • 20 Octubre 2022
    ... ... 1995). There must be "other indicia of true ownership." United States v ... Approximately $252,140 ... 00 in US Currency , 532 F. Supp. 3d 334, 338 (W.D.N.C. 2021). "Ownership may be established by proof of 'actual possession, control, title, and financial ... ...
  • United States v. $16,761 in United States Currency
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • 20 Octubre 2022
    ...by proof of “actual possession, control, title, and financial stake.” Id (citing United States v. $119,030.00 in U.S. Currency, 955 F.Supp.2d 569, 576 (W.D. Va. 2013)). Accordingly, Sanders must provide some evidence other than his bare assertion that the Currency belongs to him. Apart from......
  • Eweka v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 1:12cv1055.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 3 Julio 2013
    ... ... Civil Action No. 1:12cv1055. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT