United States v. One 1973 Volvo, Civ. A. No. A-73-CA-190.
| Citation | 377 F. Supp. 810 |
| Decision Date | 12 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. A-73-CA-190. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. ONE 1973 VOLVO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Asst. U. S. Atty. Edward M. Johnson, for libelant.
Kirk Kuykendall, Austin, Tex., for libelee.
Libelant has instituted this suit to forfeit a 1973 blue Volvo owned by the claimant, Alyse Rawland. Libelant alleges that the vehicle in question was used to facilitate a marijuana importation conspiracy entered into by the claimant and others to import marijuana into the United States from Mexico. Authority for the forfeiture is based on 49 U.S.C. § 781, 21 U.S.C. § 881, and 19 U.S.C. § 1595a.
In a forfeiture proceeding the libelant must show probable cause for instituting suit. United States v. Gramling, 180 F.2d 498 (5th Cir.1950). Probable cause must be something more than mere suspicion and must be generally regarded as reasonable under all the circumstances. Bush v. United States, 389 F.2d 485 (5th Cir.1968). Once probable cause has been shown, a case has been made for forfeiture, and the claimant then has the burden to prove the forfeiture is not within the statute. 389 F.2d at 489.
Since no marijuana was found in the Volvo, the probable cause issue in this case is whether under the forfeiture statutes the Volvo "facilitated" the importation, transportation, or sale of marijuana. The Court is of the opinion that probable cause was established by the libelant.
The libelant through the testimony of Sharon and Larry Baugh established that the claimant and her husband had used the Volvo to deliver monies to them in connection with a marijuana smuggling conspiracy. The Baughs testified to the following. In April 1973 claimant delivered approximately $4,000 in cash to them with instructions to use the money to rent an airplane to use in smuggling in marijuana from Mexico. During April some 2800 pounds of marijuana was flown into Texas with the airplane that had been rented with the money supplied by claimant. Claimant's husband later delivered approximately $20,000 to the Baughs as payment for the April trips. In May 1973 claimant's husband delivered approximately $5,000 to the Baughs to rent another airplane for the same purpose. During May approximately 1300 pounds of marijuana was smuggled into Texas in the airplane rented with the money supplied by Mr. Rawland. In late May Mr. Rawland delivered approximately $15,000 as payment for the May trips. All the deliveries of money were made in the 1973 Volvo.
The Court is of the opinion that the use of the Volvo to carry money which was used both to pay for completed shipments of marijuana and to pay for renting the airplane which was used to fly in the marijuana "facilitated" the importation, transportation, and sale of marijuana. In United States v. One 1951 Oldsmobile Sedan, 129 F.Supp. 321 (E.D.Pa.1955), the Court held that when a car is used to lessen the burden or assist in the task of executing the illegal transaction, it facilitates the sale or transportation of the contraband even though the drug is never in the automobile itself. In United States v. One 1951 Oldsmobile, 126 F.Supp. 515 (D.Conn. 1954), the automobile was held to facilitate the sale of narcotics when the money was passed in the car. The Court finds that the use of the Volvo to pass money for the purposes previously described is "facilitation" within the meaning of the forfeiture statutes.
The claimant contends that the seizure and the forfeiture statutes are unconstitutional. She claims that (1) the seizure was an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, (2) the forfeiture statutes are unconstitutional for failure to provide notice and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Manuel
...416 U.S. 663, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974); U.S. v. One 1977 Lincoln Mark V Coupe, 643 F.2d 154 (3 Cir.1981); U.S. v. One 1973 Volvo, 377 F.Supp. 810 (D.C.Tex.1974). Our survey of their decisions indicates to us that constitutional review under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifth......
-
State v. Spooner
...protections required in criminal cases. A 1974 federal district court case arising in the western district of Texas, U.S. v. One 1973 Volvo, 377 F.Supp. 810 (1974), "Libelant has instituted this suit to forfeit a 1973 blue Volvo owned by the claimant, Alyse Rawland. Libelant alleges that th......
-
United States v. One 1976 Lincoln Mark IV
...is not properly within the forfeiture statute,1 U. S. v. One 1973 Pontiac Grand AM, 413 F.Supp. 163 (W.D. Tex.1976); U. S. v. One 1973 Volvo, 377 F.Supp. 810 (W.D.Tex.1974). For years many cases held that the only exceptions to the forfeiture of vehicles were those contained in the literal ......
-
Hampton v. Thurmand, 62039
...raised in the trial court and will not be considered for the first time on appeal. In any event, see United States v. One 1973 Volvo, 377 F.Supp. 810, 812-813(7) (D.C., W.D.Tex.1974). Judgment PER CURIAM: The foregoing opinion by WELBORN, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All of t......