United States of America v. $57,880.00 in U.S. Currency

Filing 13

Memorandum, Opinion, and Order granting the Government's Motion to strike a claim (Related Doc # 8 ). Claimant's answer is stricken (Doc. # 9 ). The Government is directed to move for default within 14 days. Judge John R. Adams on 7/21/11.(K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
$57,888.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:10CV2022
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 8; Doc. 9]

This matter, a civil forfeiture action, is before the Court on a motion to strike
claim by the United States. Doc. 8. The matter relates to an airport security screening in
which a Transportation Security Administration agent discovered within a carry-on
suitcase the defendant currency in three vacuum-sealed plastic bags. Doc. 8 at 2. The
United States argues that the claimant Robert Coore, the individual that attempted to pass
through airport security with the suitcase, lacks statutory standing to challenge the
forfeiture because his complaint does not state his interest in the property. Doc. 8 at 9.
For reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Mr. Coore has failed to demonstrate the
requisite Article III standing to contest the forfeiture action.

Accordingly, the

government’s motion to strike claim is GRANTED, Mr. Coore’s Answer (Doc. 9) is
STRICKEN, and the Court DIRECTS the government to move for default within
fourteen days.
I.

BACKGROUND
The government alleges the following facts.

On November 20, 2009, at

approximately 5:00 a.m., an unidentified person known only as “Andrew LNU” (last

name unknown) dropped claimant Robert Coore off at the Akron/Canton airport. Doc. 1
at 1. Mr. Coore was scheduled to fly from Akron to Denver, Colorado, and from Denver
to Santa Ana, California. Doc. 1 at 2. After arriving at the airport, Mr. Coore proceeded
to the gate screening area with his boarding passes and a carry-on suitcase. Doc. 1 at 2.
As Mr. Coore’s suitcase was going through the security screener, the
Transportation Safety Administration (“TSA”) agent detected a dark mass in his suitcase.
Doc. 1 at 2. The dark mass turned out to be three vacuumed sealed plastic bags wrapped
with carbon copy paper. Doc. 1 at 2-3. Drug money couriers commonly use carbon copy
paper to absorb narcotic odors present on drug money. Doc. 1 at 3. Inside the plastic
bags, the TSA agent discovered the defendant U.S. currency, totaling $57,888.00. Doc. 1
at 3. The TSA agent brought the defendant currency to the attention of the on-duty
Summit County Sheriff’s Office (“SCSO”) deputy, who then asked Mr. Coore about the
money. Doc. 1 at 3. Mr. Coore stated both verbally and in writing that he did not know
anything about the money in the suitcase. Doc. 1 at 3.
Thereafter, the SCSO deputy notified a Drug Enforcement Agency Task Force
Officer (“DEA TFO”) who, upon arrival, advised Mr. Coore that he was not being
detained. Doc. 1 at 3. However, the SCSO said that he would like to ask Mr. Coore
some questions about the defendant currency. Doc. 1 at 3. According to the government,
Mr. Coore immediately stated that the money in the suitcase was not his and that he was
borrowing the suitcase from a friend. Doc. 1 at 3. The officer informed Mr. Coore of his
intention to take possession of the defendant currency because Mr. Coore stated that it
was not his. Doc. 1 at 3. Upon being asked by the officer if he would like a receipt for

2

the money, Mr. Coore allegedly said, “The money is not mine. I do not need one.” Doc.
1 at 4.
The DEA TFO proceeded to ask Mr. Coore to identify the owner of the suitcase.
Doc. 1 at 4. Mr. Coore identified an individual named “Charlton Anderson” and told the
DEA TFO that he received the suitcase from Mr. Anderson after returning a truck he
drives for Mr. Anderson to a truck yard owned by Mr. Anderson called Everett Trucking.
Doc. 1 at 4. Mr. Coore also told the DEA TFO that Mr. Anderson arranged for Mr. LNU
to take him from a friend’s house to the airport. Doc. 1 at 4. At this point, the DEA TFO
offered to arrange for Mr. Coore to take another flight.

Doc. 1 at 4.

Mr. Coore

purportedly told the officer that there was no longer any need for him to fly. Doc. 1 at 4.
Finding this last statement to be inconsistent with Mr. Coore’s statement that he
borrowed the suitcase from a friend, the DEA TFO seized the defendant currency. Doc. 1
at 5. The money was transported to the Summit County Drug Unit Office where a
narcotics dog positively identified narcotic odor on the currency. Doc. 1 at 5.
On September 10, 2010, the government filed a complaint in forfeiture under 28
U.S.C. § 1355(b)(1), naming the $57,888.00 in U.S. currency as defendant. Doc. 1 at 1.
The government alleges that the defendant currency is subject to forfeiture under 21
U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) because it “constitutes proceeds from illegal drug trafficking
activities, and/or was used or was intended to be used in exchange for illegal controlled
substances.” Doc. 1 at 2. On October 19, 2010, Mr. Coore filed a claim to the defendant
currency.

Doc. 6.

The government then moved to strike Mr. Coore’s claim on

November 2, 2010, for lack of statutory standing, as required under Supplemental
Admiralty and Maritime Claim Rule G(5)(a)(i)(B). Doc. 8 at 1. On November 12, 2010,
3

Mr. Coore filed a response to the government’s motion to strike claim, arguing that the
seizure of the defendant currency was illegal and that he has standing because the
defendant currency was in his possession when seized. Doc. 10.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A person asserting an interest in property subject to a forfeiture action in rem

arising from a federal statute may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court
where the action is pending. SUPP. ADMIRALTY AND MAR. CLAIM R. G(1), (5)(a)(i). The
claim must: identify the specific property claimed, identify the claimant and state the
claimant’s interest in the property, be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury,
and be served on the government attorney designated under Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(C) or
(b)(ii)(D). Id. at (5)(a)(i)(A)-(D). At any time before trial, the government may move to
strike a claim for failure to comply with Rule G(5) or because the claimant lacks
standing. Id. at (8)(c)(i)(A), (B).
A claimant contesting a civil forfeiture action must have both Article III standing
and statutory standing. United States v. $515,060.42 in U.S. Currency, 152 F.3d 491, 497
(6th Cir. 1998).

A claimant establishes statutory standing by complying with the

requirements of Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule G(5)(a)(i).

A

claimant contesting a forfeiture must first demonstrate a “sufficient interest in the
property to give him Article III standing; otherwise, there is no ‘case or controversy,’ in
the constitutional sense, capable of adjudication in the federal courts.” United States v.
$38,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 816 F.2d 1538, 1543 (11th Cir. 1987). Thus, contrary to
Mr. Coore’s arguments, without Article III standing, the Court cannot consider the merits
of his claim, including whether the seizure of the defendant currency was legal. Id.
4

In order to have Article III standing, a claimant must demonstrate a “colorable
ownership, possessory or security interest in at least a portion of the defendant property.”
$515,060.42, 152 F.3d at 497. A property interest less than ownership may be sufficient
to create standing. Id. at 498. Claims of “naked possession,” however, are insufficient to
establish Article III standing.

Id.

Accordingly, “the assertion of simple physical

possession of property as a basis for standing must be accompanied by factual allegations
regarding how the claimant came to possess the property, the nature of the claimant’s
relationship to the property, and/or the story behind the claimant’s control of the
property.” Id. (citing United States v. $321,470.00 in U.S. Currency, 874 F.2d 298, 301,
304 (5th Cir. 1989) (“a courier carrying cash from an unknown owner to an unknown
recipient, resolute in his determination to give no explanation except that he was asked to
transport cash, the ideal mule for drug traffickers, must be prepared to demonstrate that
he has a lawful possessory interest”)).
III.

DISCUSSION
In relevant part, Mr. Coore’s claim states that “I, Robert Coore, of 4217 Colony

Road, South Euclid, Ohio 44121, the person from whose possession and control the
$57,880.00 in U.S. Currency (involved in this matter and referred to above) was seized
by member of the Summit County Sheriff’s Office, hereby formally lodge a Claim for
the described monies. . . . Indeed, given that the funds centralized in this matter were in
my possession . . . there is no way the Government can prevail in any forfeiture action.”
Doc. 6 at 1-2 (emphasis in original). Nowhere in Mr. Coore’s claim or his response to
the government’s motion to strike claim does he explain how he came to possess the
defendant currency in his carry-on suitcase. Nor does Mr. Coore explain the nature of his
5

relationship to the defendant currency or the story behind his control of the defendant
currency. As such, the Court finds that Mr. Coore’s claim is no more than a claim of
naked possession. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Mr. Coore lacks the requisite
Article III standing required to challenge the forfeiture of the defendant currency.
As previously stated, the Court need not consider whether the government had
probable cause to seize the defendant currency since Mr. Coore lacks the requisite Article
III standing to lodge a claim for the defendant currency in the first place.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States’ motion to strike claim is

GRANTED. Doc. 8. Accordingly, Mr. Coore’s Answer (Doc. 9) is STRICKEN, and the
Court DIRECTS the government to move for default within fourteen days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: July 21, 2011

/s/ John R. Adams_________________
Judge John R. Adams
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6