US v. $639,470.00 US CURRENCY
| Decision Date | 20 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 93-5985-SVW(SHx).,CV 93-5985-SVW(SHx). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. $639,470.00 U.S. CURRENCY, and 1988 Lincoln Continental VIN 1LNBM9843JY800878, its tools and appurtenances, Defendants. Sergio Ramirez and Maria Ramirez, Claimants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Carla A. Ford, Asst. U.S. Atty., Nora M. Manella, U.S. Atty., Leon W. Weidman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Civil Division and Janet C. Hudson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Assets Forfeiture Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff.
Maxine I. Dobro, San Diego, CA, for defendant.
SECOND AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO CLAIMANT SERGIO RAMIREZ AND DENYING CLAIMANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS, FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, TO SUPPRESS, AND FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY
This is a civil in rem forfeiture action brought by the United States against a vehicle and an amount of U.S. currency. Claimant Sergio Ramirez has filed claims to both defendants. Plaintiff has filed motions for leave to amend its complaint to correct a typographical error1 and for summary judgment. Claimant has filed motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, for return of seized property, for judgment on the pleadings, and to suppress evidence. The Court has considered the parties' submissions, and concludes that it must grant plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. The Court will address the parties' arguments on each of the issues bearing on this conclusion.
On March 7, 1995 claimant Sergio Ramirez was convicted of conspiracy to transport or possess narcotics in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 182.1 and Cal.Health and Safety Code §§ 11351 and 11352, and possession of more than $100,000 involved in the unlawful sale or purchase of a controlled substance in violation of Cal.Health and Safety Code § 11370.6. (People v. Ramirez, No. 93CF2742, Sup.Ct. Orange Cty).
The Court will briefly describe the events leading up to claimant's conviction. On April 13, 1993, an informant named Rafael Calvario told California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement agent Richard Williams of a potential purchase of a large quantity of cocaine. On April 14, Calvario arranged with the seller to complete the transaction the following day, and informed Williams of the arrangements. When the parties to the transaction met on April 15 in the parking lot at the Laguna Niguel shopping center, they were under surveillance by a law enforcement team headed by Williams. Williams saw claimant meet with Calvario and observed the parties discussing the terms of the transaction. Calvario then met with Williams and informed him that claimant had requested 50 kilograms of cocaine and that Calvario, claimant, and the other individuals involved in the transaction had arranged to meet one hour thereafter. Calvario returned to the parking lot at that time and the parties discussed the price of the cocaine to be purchased. Calvario and claimant agreed to contact each other later that day. That evening, Calvario and claimant agreed to return to the shopping center the following morning to complete a transaction for 50 kilos.
The following morning, April 16, 1993, Calvario spoke to claimant by telephone with Williams present. During this conversation, claimant and Calvario agreed to complete the transaction by switching vehicles later that day so that Calvario would end up with the money and claimant would get the cocaine. At about 1:25 p.m. on April 16, 1993, claimant called Calvario to inform him that claimant had arrived at the shopping center, the agreed meeting-place for the completion of the transaction. When Calvario arrived there, claimant told him that claimant had $650,000 and wanted 40 kilos of cocaine at the agreed-upon price of $14,800 per kilo. Claimant then showed Calvario two suitcases containing large quantities of cash in the trunk of a Nissan Maxima. Claimant and Calvario agreed to meet 30 or 40 minutes thereafter at a nearby Sav-On drugstore to complete the transaction. Calvario then saw claimant leave in the Maxima with a man later identified as Cesar Rodriguez.
The surveillance team followed and observed claimant and Rodriguez as claimant drove out of the shopping center and proceeded to make several turns into parking lots and a u-turn before heading north on Interstate 5. They then drove north on the 405 freeway, exited and doubled back south on the 405 to Ortega Highway, where they went east to a hotel parking lot. The surveillance team then saw claimant and Rodriguez remove the suitcases from the trunk of the Maxima and place them in the trunk of the defendant vehicle, a Lincoln Continental parked in the hotel parking lot. In the Continental, claimant and Rodriguez then drove east on Ortega before turning around and returning to I-5.
At about 3:00 p.m., as claimant and Rodriguez proceeded north on I-5, Cal. Highway Patrol officer James Storment, who was aware of all of the foregoing, claims that he paced the Continental at about 70 miles per hour. Claimant conceded at the hearing held on October 23, 1995 on the instant motions that he in fact was driving 70 miles per hour. Storment pulled over the Continental and asked to see claimant's driver's license and registration. Claimant produced a California driver's license, as well as a California Vehicle Salesperson's license and a business card from his place of employment, World Auto Sales in National City, California. Claimant was unable to produce a vehicle registration. Storment then asked claimant to get out of the car, and out of Rodriguez' hearing, Storment asked claimant where he was coming from and where he was going. Claimant responded that he was coming from Temecula and going to Los Angeles "to visit." Claimant would not elaborate as to the purpose of his trip, and he identified Rodriguez only as "Raul." Storment then returned to the vehicle and asked Rodriguez where he was coming from and where he was going. Rodriguez replied that he and claimant were on their way from San Diego to the airport so Rodriguez could fly back to San Jose. Storment then requested and received claimant's consent to search the vehicle. Before Storment began to search, claimant told him that claimant was carrying more than $10,000, which he was going to use to buy cars at an auction so that he could resell them as part of his business at World Auto Sales. Claimant then opened the trunk for Storment, and Storment found the cash in the two suitcases. Storment questioned claimant as to the amount of money he was transporting, and claimant responded that he had about $600,000 which he was going to use to buy 30 cars. When Storment began to search the suitcases, Rodriguez fled. Rodriguez was caught soon afterward, and both he and claimant were arrested and booked for violation of Cal.Health and Safety Code § 11370.6, possession of more than $100,000 involved in a drug transaction.
Claimant was taken to the Orange County jail, and the currency ($639,470.00) and the vehicle (the Continental) were seized by Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement agents. Plaintiff states that on April 19, 1993, three days later, CHP officer Morrison brought "Barry," a drug-sniffing dog, to conduct a drug sniff of the currency. Plaintiff further states that "Barry" alerted to the currency, which indicates the presence of the odor of narcotics on the currency.
No agency of the state of California initiated any forfeiture proceeding with regard to either the currency or the vehicle. Instead, on May 25, 1993, BNE requested that the federal government "adopt" the seizure of the defendants and commence federal forfeiture proceedings. Plaintiff recommended approval of the request for adoption on June 30, 1993.2 It is unclear exactly when the defendants were transferred to the custody of the federal government. On October 1, 1993, plaintiff filed its complaint for forfeiture in rem pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881. An arrest warrant was served upon the defendants on November 4, 1993, and plaintiff published an official notice of forfeiture pursuant to Supplemental Rules of Civ.P. C(4) and C(6) on November 9, 1993. In addition, plaintiff mailed notices of forfeiture to claimant Sergio Ramirez at his residence, his business (World Auto Sales), and his attorney's office, as well as to Cesar Rodriguez (the passenger in the defendant vehicle) and to the registered owners of the defendant vehicle. Return receipts show that claimant Sergio Ramirez received such notice at his residence on November 17, 1993 and that his attorney received the notice on November 18, 1993. In December 1993, claimant asserted an ownership interest in the defendants. No other claim was filed during the claims period set forth in the official notice. This action was stayed pending claimant's trial in Orange County Superior Court which, it will be recalled, resulted in claimant's conviction on March 5, 1995.
Maria Ramirez, Sergio Ramirez's wife, filed a claim to the defendants on September 22, 1995, nearly two years after the expiration of the claims period. She contends that she is entitled to one-half of the defendants as her community property. Plaintiff did not serve her with its motion for summary judgment, and she has not appeared in the proceedings on said motion. In deciding the instant motion, the Court will thus adjudicate only claimant Sergio Ramirez's asserted ownership interest in the defendants, and all references to "claimant" herein are intended to refer only to Sergio Ramirez.
Claimant has moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that this Court lacks in rem jurisdiction over the defendants. The first step in claimant's argument is the recitation of the well-established rule of ancient vintage that in rem jurisdiction must be exclusive,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Rufo
...(6th Cir.1993); United States v. One 1985 Cadillac Seville, 866 F.2d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. $639,470.00 U.S. Currency, 919 F.Supp. 1405, 1410-1412 (C.D.Cal.1996). In the case before us, the property in dispute was not seized pursuant to a warrant. No Massachusetts statu......
- California Democratic Party v. Lungren
-
United States v. Approximately $158,000.00 in U.S. Currency
...is summary judgment. See U.S. v. 50,040 in U.S. Currency, 2007 WL 1176631 at *3 (N.D. Cal 2007); (citing U.S. v. $639,470.00 in U.S. Currency, 919 F.Supp. 1405, 1417. (C.D. Cal. 1996) ("Rule E(2) does not require the government to meet, at the pleading stage, its ultimate trial burden of sh......
-
In re Seizure of Approx. 28 Grams of Marijuana
...One 1986 Chevrolet Van, 927 F.2d 39, 44-45 (1st Cir.1991); Madewell v. Downs, 68 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir.1995); United States v. $639,470 U.S. Currency, 919 F.Supp. 1405 (C.D.Cal.1996). In 1986 Chevrolet Van, the court summarily rejected claimant's arguments that state court control for purposes......