United States v. $9,171.00 U.S. Currency
| Decision Date | 18 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:16-cv-00483-TWP-MJD |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. $9,171.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY, $7,058.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY, ONE TAURUS 9MM HANDGUN, Serial Number TAR15190, ONE SMITH AND WESSON .40 CALIBER REVOLVER, Serial Number FWL2365, ONE TAURUS HANDGUN, Serial Number SV174717, ONE RUGER 9MM HANDGUN, Serial Number 32567336, Defendants. AND THE INTERESTS OF: NIKKI JONES, Claimant, MONTE SCRUGGS, Claimant, BRANDY SCURLOCK, Claimant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
This civil forfeiture action is before the Court on Claimant Nikki Jones' ("Ms. Jones") Motion to Suppress Evidence (Filing No. 71). The United States of America ("the Government") seeks forfeiture of assets that include $7,058.00 in United States Currency seized from Ms. Jones' vehicle. She contends seizure of the $7,058.00 was the product of an unlawful search of her vehicle in violation of her rights under of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For reasons stated below, Ms. Jones' Motion to Suppress is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a search warrant for any authorized law enforcement officer to search the "property and premises" located at 5936 North Rockingham Lane, McCordsville, Indiana. (Filing No. 71-1 at 1-2). A photograph of the premises displayed a two-story single family home with a garage door, a front yard, and a driveway in front. Id at 2. The items to be searched for and seized in the narcotics investigation included: currency; financial instruments or evidence of financial transactions; driver's licenses or passports; "any and all evidence of false and/or fictitious identification documents, to include ... any state ... drivers licenses ... identification cards, [or] credit cards"; records or documents evidencing travel within or outside of Indiana, to include airline records, bus and train tickets, hotel records, and car rental records; indicia of occupancy, residency, or ownership and control "of the premises and other, off-site locations, including ... keys"; firearms; and controlled substances. (Filing No. 71-1 at 3-5).
On July 22, 2015, FBI agents and other law enforcement officers executed the federal search warrant at the home of Michael and Nikki Jones, located at 5936 North Rockingham Lane, McCordsville, Indiana. A narcotics canine that had been deployed to the address alerted on a 2014 Ford Flex parked in the driveway of the Rockingham address. The vehicle was registered to Ms. Jones. During the search, agents located $7,058.00 in United States Currency in the console of the vehicle, as well as a loaded Taurus handgun, and several cell phones. Officers searched the Ford Flex while it remained parked in the driveway. Ms. Jones informed officers that there was $6,000.00 reimbursement from her mother's funeral inside her car.
Although no drugs were recovered from the vehicle or residence, agents believed the currency and other property constituted proceeds of and/or property used to facilitate violations of the Controlled Substances Act. Based on this belief, the currency and other property was seizedand taken into custody by the FBI. On May 14, 2019, Ms. Jones filed the instant Motion to Suppress the $7,058.000 as evidence, arguing the search warrant did not allow a search of her vehicle and seizure of the currency was therefore unlawful.
U.S. Const. amend. IV. "If the search or seizure was effected pursuant to a warrant, the defendant bears the burden of proving its illegality." United States v. Longmire, 761 F.2d 411, 417 (7th Cir. 1985). In reviewing the issuance of a search warrant:
a magistrate's determination of probable cause...should be overruled only when the supporting affidavit, read as a whole in a realistic and common sense manner, does not allege specific facts and circumstances from which the magistrate could reasonably conclude that the items sought to be seized are associated with the crime and located in the place indicated.
United States v. Norris, 640 F.3d 295, 300 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Spry, 190 F.3d 829, 835 (7th Cir. 1999)). Instead of focusing on technical aspects of probable cause, the reviewing court should consider all facts presented to the magistrate. United States v. Lloyd, 71 F.3d 1256, 1262 (7th Cir. 1995).
The Government does not dispute that Ms. Jones as a claimant, has standing to challenge the lawfulness of a search or seizure of property which the Government is attempting to forfeit. Rule G(8)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions provides that "[i]f the defendant property was seized, a party with standing to contest thelawfulness of the seizure may move to suppress use of the property as evidence." United States v. $304,980.00 in U.S. Currency, 732 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2013).
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Ms. Jones does not challenge the accuracy of the information articulated by law enforcement in the search warrant. She assumes, without conceding, that officers had probable cause to search the vehicle as a result of the canine alert. (Filing No. 71 at 4). There are no disputed factual issues and neither party requested a hearing on the motion to suppress. Accordingly, the Court is able to rule on the motion without a hearing. "District courts are required to conduct evidentiary hearings only when a substantial claim is presented and there are disputed issues of material fact that will affect the outcome of the motion." United States v. Curlin, 638 F.3d 562, 564 (7th Cir. 2011).
Ms. Jones moves to suppress all evidence seized from her vehicle because the warrant did not specifically permit a search of her vehicle, and she therefore asserts it was a warrantless search. She argues that the scope of the warrant was limited only to the house, thus the search of the vehicle in her private driveway was a warrantless search in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. She asserts that the inventory exception does not apply because the search was not incident to her arrest; the automobile exception does not apply because the vehicle was parked in a private driveway; and there were no exigent circumstances and no risk of the vehicle being driven away before officers could obtain a separate warrant to search her car. Thus, the only issue to be decided is whether a search warrant for residential premises authorizes a search of the vehicle in the driveway.
In response, the Government asserts that vehicles parked on the premises and connected to a residence described in the search warrant are subject to search. In support of their position, theGovernment relies on several Seventh Circuit and other authorities that have addressed this issue and hold that a search warrant authorizing a search of particularly described premises may permit the search of vehicles that are found on the premises and owned or controlled by a resident. See United States v. Percival, 756 F.2d 600, 612 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Evans, 92 F.3d 540, 543 (7th Cir. 1996) (); see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial