Saying Someone Might Do Something Illegal With Cash Isn't Enough For Gov't To Seize It, Court Rules
from the by-any-means-unnecessary dept
The government loves taking people's money. It likes it so much it gets pretty weird about it. Even considering all we've covered here on the subject of forfeiture, the legal theory deployed by the government in this case is astounding. From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision [PDF]:
The panel reversed the district court's judgment of civil forfeiture of $11,500 under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) from claimant Charles Guerrero, and remanded for a new trial.
When Guerrero, through a friend, tried to post the $11,500 as bail for his wife, the government seized the cash. At trial, the government alleged two theories: that the money was proceeds from the claimant's drug deals, and that the claimant used or intended to use the money to facilitate drug transactions.
Charles Guerrero and his wife were no angels. But neither were they high-level drug dealers. Both apparently had crippling heroin addictions and engaged in a small amount of dealing to ensure the incoming flow of heroin.
But that's not enough to excuse the government nabbing bail money under the theory it probably came from drug dealing or -- more spuriously -- that it might have been used to purchase drugs if it hadn't been spent on bail.
Guerrero had his friend take the cash to pay the bail because Guerrero had no valid ID. Guerrero claims he had about $14,000 in cash in his home obtained from insurance settlements and the sale of a vehicle. The government made its own claims, based on the discovery of drugs in the vehicle Guerrero was sitting in, along with a dog that said, "Yes. That is drug money."
While Charles waited outside, Wood went to the MCDC’s bail window and told an officer he was there to post the cash to free Rosalie. Jail officials ran Wood’s records and discovered that he had a criminal history. Coupled with the fact that Wood was attempting to bail out a repeat drug offender with a wad of cash, this prompted jail officials to call Agent Guy Gino of the federal Department of Homeland Security. Agent Gino went to the MCDC, asked Wood a few questions regarding the origin of the $11,500, and requested permission to have a drug sniffing dog smell the currency. Wood agreed.
The dog (Nikko) alerted to a drug odor on the money. Agent Gino asked Wood if Nikko could sniff his car. Again, Wood agreed. On the way to the car, the group encountered Charles, who was waiting for Woods to come out of the jail. Charles objected to law enforcement searching the car but Wood nonetheless permitted Nikko to do so. Nikko alerted to a black bag in the vehicle—which, the officers later discovered, belonged to Charles—containing 3.6 grams of heroin. Officers also found an additional $2,971 in cash on Charles. Agent Gino arrested Charles and seized the drugs, the $2,971 found on Charles, and the $11,500 Wood had tried to post as bail.
The government seized it all. Guerrero challenged the seizure. The jury at the lower level let the government keep it. Guerrero appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court reversed on the issue of the $11,500. On remand, the government restated its assertions about the $11,500, claiming the Guerrero's had no proof the money had been obtained legally. Failing that, the government claimed the money -- even if obtained legitimately -- would only be used to purchase more controlled substances. Heads, I win. Tails, you lose. But not this time.
The Appeals Court will send this case back to the lower court a second time. As it noted during its first pass, there were genuine questions about the origin/destination of the $11,500, but it needed far more than the government's speculative assertions to make this call. Unfortunately, the lower court dismissed Guerrero's argument that the jury's split verdict allowed the government to punish him for thinking, rather than for what he actually did. The district court basically gave the government an unearned win, stating the money's origin was clean but its intended use wasn't.
This makes a mockery of due process, even more so than civil forfeiture already does. If someone socks away some cash intending to purchase drugs at some point, but then attempts to pay bills with it instead, the government could theoretically seize the cash before the bills are paid based on the person's arrest history, apparent drug dependency, etc. Given free reign, no one's money is safe, least of all those with criminal pasts.
Unsurprisingly, the court finds this theory of future "guilt" a violation the Eighth Amendment. Americans are supposed to be free of cruel and unusual punishments. Taking money from people because they might use it to commit a legal act in the future is cruel and unusual, especially when no actions have been taken indicating the cash is headed for an illegal destination. As the concurring opinion points out, the $11,500 was in process of being handed over to pay bail, making any illegal future use of that $11,500 impossible.
The court points out the law simply cannot be read the way government would like it to be. To do so would make any amount of cash seizable from anyone, simply because cash and the possibility for bad things to be done with it are both things that will always exist.
On its face... § 881(a)(6) contains no limiting principle and appears to apply whenever anyone, at any point in time, so much as thinks about using money to purchase drugs. One need not look any further than this case to realize how far the literal language of § 881(a)(6) could reach. The only evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the Guerreros intended to use the $11,500 for drugs shows that the couple were heavy heroin addicts who bought and sold drugs regularly. The government offered no specifics. Although it should surprise no one that an addict might think of spending whatever money he has to sustain his addiction, the Guerreros, so far as the evidence indicates, did not act on any such thoughts with respect to the $11,500. 4 In fact, at the time Agent Gino seized their money, the Guerreros had entrusted it to Virgil Wood, who was standing at a bail window in the MCDC asking to bail out Rosalie. Was there some possibility that, prior to Wood walking in the MCDC, the Guerreros intended to use the money for drug transactions? Of course. And is there a likelihood that if the Guerreros got the bail money back they would have used some part of it in the future for drugs? Again, it seems reasonable to answer “of course.” Does § 881(a)(6) reach either back in time to unrealized intentions or forward in time to speculative, inchoate plans? We think not.
Because the government's assertions came before the jury instructions, the forfeiture is being overturned on a procedural issue, rather than the governing statute being innately unconstitutional. The government will get a third chance to take $11,500 from the Guerreros, unfortunately. But it won't be able to argue quite as vehemently that a drug user's cash will only be spent on drugs.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 9th circuit, asset forfeiture, asset seizure, cash, charles guerrero, civil asset forfeiture
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: Eighth Amendment?
Under the government's definition of the commerce clause, there is nothing in the world they do not have power over.For example, if you choose to voice your freedom of expression instead of buying paint and canvas and painting that expression, you have had an impact on interstate commerce in choosing not to spend money, therefore your exercise of first amendment rights is subject to government control via the commerce clause. You therefore don't have a guaranteed right, you have a privilege the government can take away, restrict or otherwise regulate because you are engaging in interstate commerce.
Even if the paint and canvas you might have bought came from sources located 100% inside your state, the choice to buy local means you didn't engage in interstate commerce, which means a company in another state won't get your money, which DOES impact interstate commerce, so your avoidance of interstate commerce is interstate commerce, and therefore the federal government has control of it under the commerce clause.
Seriously.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Illegal search or seizure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm, I seem to vaguely remember some study years ago saying something like over 90% of hundred dollar bills had drug residue on them. Really not hard to imagine this being the case. Drug dealer drops off handful of bills at the bank, these then run through a counting machine. Suddenly a LOT of bills have drugs on them as the counting machine spreads small amounts around.
Point is that wouldn't a drug dog almost always alert near cash considering almost all cash has likely 1) Come in direct contact with drugs or 2) come in contact with bills that have had direct contact?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp
This was a thought crime. We thought there might be crime so we had to swoop in and stop it before anything bad happened. Because they were "Bad People™" means we don't need to follow those pesky laws & regulations, they are going to get what they deserve.
Everyone is someones "Bad Person™", and allowing them to keep doing this to others opens everyone up to it.
Of course the other side of the coin is why are we taking the word and assumptions of LEO's who think a dog with a wagging tail is a threat, black teens can power up like DragonBall characters, that kids toys in the front yard aren't a sign there might be kids in the house you're about to flash bang, that because we raided the wrong house doesn't mean we need to pay to replace your door, a woman knocking on a window is a threat that needs to be shot first, we tore down your house to make sure the hot spot we saw wasn't the criminal who left 3 hours ago, that a made up medical condition killed the victim not the 50 taser hits, I'd keep going but I'm depressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Before or after the police handled it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're thinking of powdered sugar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So
Shooting blacks, stealing poor people's money, no knock warrants, wiretapping, and mistakes being allowed because of good intentions. This is your American justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eighth Amendment?
The idea that they had to use the eighth amendment as a reason that the government went too far is a bizarre result when they punished someone for something they may have been thinking. This implies that the real problem is that the government went too far in the punishment rather than over reaching in their prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eighth Amendment?
That's almost the entire basis for the drug war. The Federal Government claims the right to regulate drugs under the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution—regardless of whether there's any interstate activity, or any commerce at all. E.g. Gonzales v. Raich about someone growing pot for their own use within one state:
So they can regulate because it might "affect" interstate commerce in some way. And since the basis for much of modern American commerce is ideas (copyright/patents/etc.)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eighth Amendment?
For example, if you choose to voice your freedom of expression instead of buying paint and canvas and painting that expression, you have had an impact on interstate commerce in choosing not to spend money, therefore your exercise of first amendment rights is subject to government control via the commerce clause. You therefore don't have a guaranteed right, you have a privilege the government can take away, restrict or otherwise regulate because you are engaging in interstate commerce.
Even if the paint and canvas you might have bought came from sources located 100% inside your state, the choice to buy local means you didn't engage in interstate commerce, which means a company in another state won't get your money, which DOES impact interstate commerce, so your avoidance of interstate commerce is interstate commerce, and therefore the federal government has control of it under the commerce clause.
Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen*
The government will get a third chance to take $11,500 from the Guerreros, unfortunately. But it won't be able to argue quite as vehemently that a drug user's cash will only be spent on drugs.
How many tax dollars has US government already squandered in it's brazen attempt to steal the Guerreros $11,500?
How much have the Guerreros been forced to spend on legal fees to protect their property?
The resources squandered during two trials and a turn through an appellate court greatly exceed the value of the $11,500 that the US government is blatantly attempting to steal from the Guerreros in an overt act of malice.
Frederic Bastiat, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen*:
In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
World Turned Upside Down?
What bizarre world of justice and common sense does this court live in? Truly not in the same fantasyland as inhabited by most of the Law Enforcement Agencies and prosecutors who think that simply finding money means it can be seized.
One wonders why they didn't also argue that the money was possibly also made by selling hot dogs without a license?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: World Turned Upside Down?
The World Turned Upside Down (Fifes and Drums) – YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The black coat kill more than 1000 a year
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contaminated currency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most banknotes have traces of cocaine on them; this has been confirmed by studies done in several countries.[1] In 1994, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that in Los Angeles, out of every four banknotes, on average more than three are tainted by cocaine or another illicit drug.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/14/cocaine.traces.money/
The money in each of our wallets has been subjected to one or more drugs including marijuana. Does that mean that if a cop has a dog sniff my money it automatically becomes his property, ever though I do no drugs of any kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They only bring out the dogs when they want an excuse to seize property, or carry out a search just because they want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most banknotes have traces of cocaine on them
the sniffer dogs can detect bitcoins, as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. Just no.
On remand, the government restated its assertions about the $11,500, claiming the Guerrero's had no proof the money had been obtained legally.
Ah robbery at badge-point, where you are required to prove not only that the property in question wasn't the result of illegal actions or involved in them, but won't be used for them at some point in the future, both a complete reversal of the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law', and one almost impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No. Just no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alert Tom Cruise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alert Tom Cruise
This case is chock full of copyright violations: thoughtcrime from Orwell, pre-crime from Dick, and a justice system straight out of Kafka. The IP lawyers are gonna have a field day with this dystopian hat trick.
(Hell, maybe even the MPAA can get in on the action with some Brazil infringement...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dog Jurisprudence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crimethink
Time to resurrect George Orwell and have him debate Jeff Sessions....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The war on drugs like the so called war on poverty will never end. You can't stop people. Now it's a whole Industry with the Drug Lords, and the Corrupt police, and the Jails. They're all the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not that I condone vote rigging, but I do have some Russian friends. Maybe "something" can be arranged...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]