United States of America v. $17,550 United States Currency

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 4/17/13. (klau, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.

$17,550 UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,

Defendant.

1:13cv146 (JCC/JFA)

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

This matter is before the Court on Claimant Mandrel
Lamont Stuart’s (“Claimant”) “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Supplemental
Rule G(2)” (“Motion”).

[Dkt. 6.]

For the following reasons, the

Court will deny Claimant’s Motion.
I.
A.

Background

Factual Background

This case arises out of the seizure of $17,550 by
officers of the Fairfax County, Virginia Police Highway
Interdiction Team in August 12, 2012 from Claimant’s vehicle

1

during a traffic stop of Claimant on interstate 66 (“I-66”) in
Fairfax County.
On August 22, 2012, the officers saw the vehicle driven
by Claimant traveling on I-66 with heavily tinted windows,
Florida license plates, a medium crack in the windshield directly
in line of sight of the driver, and a DVD video screen flipped up
with a movie paying and visible to the driver.
¶ 7.)

(Compl. [Dkt. 1]

During the subsequent traffic stop, Claimant told an

officer that he owned a restaurant in Staunton, Virginia, as well
as a house in Florida and two other restaurants in the D.C. area.
He stated that he and his passenger, whom he described as his
girlfriend of a year, were traveling to D.C. to check on those
other two restaurants.

(Id. ¶ 8.)

His passenger, however,

stated that she had been dating Claimant for only a month, that
they were traveling to the Richmond/D.C. area to go shopping and
to get something to eat, and that she was unaware of the
restaurants which Claimant stated he owned and allegedly was
going to visit.

(Id. ¶ 9.)

After a K-9 police officer arrived at the scene, a
trained drug dog positively alerted on the front bumper and left
rear wheel area of the vehicle.

(Id. ¶ 10.)

The officers

located a black folding knife on Claimant during a pat-down of
him and his passenger.

(Id. ¶ 11.)

A search of the vehicle

revealed that none of the four windows would roll down, the dash
2

and interior trim was suspiciously loose, and there was a yellow
straw with unknown residue in the CD changer in the center
console and a backpack behind the driver’s seat containing DVDs
and a residue suspected to be marijuana flakes which field-tested
positive for THC, the active chemical in marijuana.

(Id. ¶ 12.)

On top of the left rear wheel well hump, the officers found a
black laptop bag inside of which was a paper bag containing large
bundles of currency.

(Id. ¶ 13.)

After the officers issued Claimant a summons for the
DVD screen violation and he voluntarily accompanied them to the
Fairfax County Police Sully Station, another trained drug dog
positively alerted to the bags containing the currency and the
suspected marijuana flakes.

(Id. ¶ 14.)

The currency in the

laptop bag totaled $17,550.

(Id. ¶ 15.)

While at the station,

Claimant stated that he instead was traveling to a restaurant
wholesaler in D.C. to pick up supplies for his Staunton
restaurant and claimed to have been to the wholesaler
approximately 30 times previously, but did not have a list of
needed supplies nor knew the wholesaler’s name, phone number,
address, or directions to get to the wholesaler.

(Id. ¶ 16.)

Claimant did not have a business card or check book for his
businesses and stated that this was because the “tax man” had
shut down his accounts for tax evasion.

(Id.)

With Claimant’s

consent, officers reviewed his cell phone and found text messages
3

indicative of drug transactions.

(Id. ¶ 17.)

Claimant has no

reported wages or earnings according to a search of Virginia
employment records.

(Id. ¶ 18.)

Claimant has a record of drug

convictions and numerous arrests for drugs and weapons charges.
(Id. ¶ 19.)
B.

Procedural Background

The Government filed its Verified Complaint in rem for
civil forfeiture of the defendant currency on February 1, 2013.
[Dkt. 1.]

On March 4, 2013, Claimant submitted a Claim for the

seized defendant currency.

[Dkt. 4.]

On March 25, 2013,

Claimant filed his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Supplemental Rule G(2)
and accompanying memorandum.

[Dkts. 6-7.]

The Government filed

its opposition on March 28, 2013 [Dkt. 9], and Claimant replied
on April 1, 2013 [Dkt. 10].
Claimant’s Motion is now before the Court.
II.

Analysis

Under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), all currency furnished or
intended to be furnished in exchange for illegal drugs, all
proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all currency used or
intended to be used to facilitate illegal drug trafficking are
subject to forfeiture.

Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for

Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims and 18 U.S.C. §
983 provide the rules governing civil forfeiture proceedings.
4

Under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”), in
forfeiture actions brought under 18 U.S.C. § 983, “the burden of
proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture.”
U.S.C. § 983(c)(1).

18

To do so, the Government “may use evidence

gathered after the filing of a complaint.”

18 U.S.C. §

983(c)(2).
To determine the sufficiency of a civil forfeiture
complaint, the court looks to whether the complaint satisfies the
requirements of Supplemental Rule G(2)(f), which requires the
complaint to “state sufficiently detailed facts to support a
reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its
burden of proof at trial.”

Supp. Rule G(2)(f); see Supp. Rule

G(8)(b) (noting the “sufficiency of the complaint is governed by
Rule G(2)” and that “the complaint may not be dismissed on the
ground that the government did not have adequate evidence at the
time the complaint was filed to establish the forfeitability of
the property”).

Supplemental Rule G(2)(f) carries forward the

standard for determining the sufficiency of a civil forfeiture
complaint set forth in United States v. Mondragon, 313 F.3d 862,
865–66 (4th Cir. 2002), which held that such a complaint need
only allege “facts sufficient to support a reasonable belief that
the property is subject to forfeiture.”

See United States v.

$79,650 Seized from Bank of America account ending in -8247, in
5

name of Afework, No. 1:08cv1233 (JCC), 2009 WL 331294, at *2
(E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2009); United States v. All Assets Held at Bank
Julius Baer & Co., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15–17 (D.D.C. 2008)
(citing, inter alia, the Advisory Committee Note on the 2006
Adoption of Supp. Rule G).
Upon reviewing the facts, the Court finds that the
Government has stated facts sufficient to support a reasonable
belief that the defendant currency is subject to forfeiture due
to its connection to drug trafficking.

In this case, the

Complaint alleges that a substantial amount of cash was found in
unusual packaging (in bundles in a paper bag inside a laptop
bag). (Compl. ¶ 13.)

The mere “presence of that much cash, oddly

packaged, could raise a suspicion that someone was up to no good,
but without more it does not suggest a connection to drug
trafficking.”

Mondragon, 313 F.3d at 866.

As in Mondragon,

however, the Complaint provides additional key allegations.

The

defendant currency also was found in an unusual location (on top
of the left rear wheel well hump).

(Compl. ¶ 13.)

A drug dog

alerted to the vehicle area in which the cash was located, the
left rear wheel area, as well as alerted directly to the bag
containing the currency itself.

(Id. ¶ 10, 14.)

Suspected drug

residue also was found in the car, including a backpack
containing suspected marijuana flakes (which field-tested
positive for THC and to which a drug dog alerted positively) and
6

a yellow straw with unknown residue in the CD changer in the
car’s center console.

(Id. ¶ 12, 14.)

In addition, none of the

four windows would roll down and the dash and interior trim of
the vehicle was suspiciously loose, suggesting that drugs had
been or could be stored in the vehicle’s doors.

(Id. ¶ 12.)

The

vehicle’s Florida license plates and Claimant’s assertion that he
had a home in Florida and was traveling up to the D.C. area
suggest that Claimant was coming from Florida, a source state for
drugs.

(Id. ¶ 7-8.)
Moreover, Claimant’s explanation of his travel’s

purpose, his employment, and his relationship with his passenger
was discredited by his passenger’s contradictory statements and
by the absence of any Virginia employment records for him, and
Claimant later changed his explanation to a story with
significant and suspicious gaps in critical details.
16, 18.)

(Id. 8-9,

Finally, the Complaint alleges that text messages

indicative of drug transactions were found on Claimant’s cell
phone and that Claimant has a criminal history of involvement
with drugs.

(Id. 17, 19.)

As a result, the totality of the factual circumstances
alleged supports a reasonable belief that drugs had been
transported by Claimant in his vehicle and that the currency
found in that vehicle was linked to drug trafficking.
Mondragon, 313 F.3d at 866.

See

The Government’s Complaint,
7

therefore, has met the particularly requirement set out in
Supplemental Rule G.
III.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny
Claimant’s Motion.
An appropriate Order will issue.

April 17, 2013
Alexandria, Virginia

/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

8