United States v. Caruthers, Case No. 1:11CR00115 SNLJ.

• Decision Date: 23 August 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:11CR00115 SNLJ.
• Citation: 967 F.Supp.2d 1286
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Randy CARUTHERS, et al., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

967 F.Supp.2d 1286

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Randy CARUTHERS, et al., Defendant.

Case No. 1:11CR00115 SNLJ.

United States District Court,

E.D. Missouri,

Southeastern Division.

Aug. 23, 2013.

Paul W. Hahn, Office of U.S. Attorney, Cape Girardeau, MO, for Plaintiff.

ORDER

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., District Judge.

This case is before the Court on Petitioner Reggie Matthews' Third Party Petition for Return of Property, # 175, and the government's Motion to Dismiss, # 189. Petitioner, who was not a defendant in the underlying criminal case, seeks return of $412,900.00 in United States currency that was seized in connection with the investigation of the case from the trunk of a vehicle he was driving. The seizure of the currency was conducted by Osceola, Arkansas, police on June 2, 2011, and four days later, at the behest of the county prosecutor, a state circuit judge issued an order transferring the currency to the FBI. The four defendants in the case plead guilty, and as part of their plea agreements, they forfeited any interest they may have had in the currency. On December 3, 2012, this Court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture in favor of the United States, # 158, based on the defendants' admissions that the currency constituted proceeds of the offenses charged. In the meantime, on motion by petitioner Matthews, the state circuit judge who issued the order transferring the currency to the FBI, set aside that order because of procedural errors, though the currency remains in the custody of the federal government.

Petitioner's argument is that, “Because a state court has found the original transfer invalid, the federal government is without jurisdiction over the funds as the state court maintains primary jurisdiction.” He adds that “... the State court's jurisdiction over the seized currency is in rem. This is opposed to the federal criminal forfeiture proceeding in the underlying criminal case which is in personam.” He then concludes that, “Because the state court has vacated its transfer order, the federal government must return the seized currency to the Arkansas state authorities pending the resolution of [the Arkansas case]. Failure to return this money would result in the violation of petitioner's rights to due process under both Arkansas and federal law.” As an alternative ground, petitioner claims that he has standing to contest the forfeiture of the currency because he possessed the property at the time of its seizure and that under Arkansas law, possession carries with it a presumption of ownership. These arguments fail altogether.

At the outset, and to state the obvious, petitioner should be hard-pressed to claim standing to assert any possessory interest on behalf of the state of Arkansas. But more to the point, the issue of the propriety of any state transfer order of the currency is irrelevant to this federal criminal proceeding, which is limited to determining petitioner's interest in the property in relation to that of the government. As petitioner concedes, this criminal forfeiture proceeding is not in rem, but in personam, and is a proceeding against the defendant himself. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 332, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998) (“[Criminal forfeiture] descends not from historic in rem forfeitures of guilty property, but from a different historical tradition: that of in personam, criminal forfeitures.”); cf. United States v. Totaro, 345 F.3d 989, 997 (8th Cir.2003) (noting in personam nature of RICO forfeitures). Third parties are given a limited statutory right...