Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00244/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00244-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

$79,010.00 in United States currency, et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0244-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Claimant pro se moves to suppress a disclaimer of ownership (Doc. 34), Plaintiff

United States opposes (Doc. 41), and Claimant did not file a reply. Claimant also moves to

suppress the affidavit of an officer included with Plaintiff’s response. Doc. 42. Plaintiff

moves to strike the latter motion (Doc. 43), and Claimant filed a notice of errata (Doc. 44).

This is a civil currency forfeiture action where it is alleged Claimant signed a

disclaimer of ownership. Doc. 1 at 8. Claimant moves to suppress the disclaimer because

it was given to him “under direct duress and indirect force.” Doc. 34 at 1. Claimant appears

to argue that because he was handcuffed and detained at the time the disclaimer was given

to him to sign, this constitutes duress such that the disclaimer is void. Id. at 1-2. Claimant

suggests that this conclusion is rooted in, and the analysis is governed by, contract law. Id.

at 1 (moving “to suppress this contract title[d] Disclaimer of Ownership,” and noting that

“this contract (Disclaimer of Ownership) [is] not valid” (emphasis in original)).

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 45 Filed 07/05/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The response by Plaintiff United States argues that the disclaimer is not an

involuntary or coerced confession under the federal constitution. Doc. 41 at 9-16. Because

Claimant has made a contractual duress argument, not a constitutional argument, and

Claimant has not filed a reply addressing the constitutional issues, the Court need not pass

judgment on the merits of the government’s constitutional arguments.

- 2 -

The disclaimer form attached to Claimant’s motion bears the seal of the Arizona

Department of Public Safety (Doc. 34 at 5), and Claimant does not allege that the officer

allegedly creating the duress was a federal officer. Therefore, to the extent Claimant does

not argue that another source of law applies, the Court will apply Arizona law. Under

Arizona law, duress in the contractual context is defined as either “any wrongful act of one

person that compels a manifestation of apparent assent by another to a transaction without

his volition” or “any wrongful threat of one person by words or other conduct that induces

another to enter into a transaction under the influence of such fear as precludes him from

exercising free will and judgment, if the threat was intended or should reasonably have been

expected to operate as an inducement.” Inter-Tel, Inc. v. Bank of Amer., 985 P.2d 596, 602

(Ariz. App. 1999) (citing Restatement of Contracts § 492).

In this case, Claimant has not shown that his detention or handcuffing was a wrongful

act in the context of the facts alleged by Plaintiff. Moreover, Claimant has not shown that

lawful handcuffing and detention by a police officer is per se duress under Arizona contract

law, nor has Claimant shown any wrongful threats or inducement in this case. Therefore, the

Court finds Claimant’s arguments without merit and will deny the motion to suppress.1

Because Claimant’s motion to suppress the disclaimer is denied on its face without

the need to examine the affirmations made by the officer’s affidavit, the motion to suppress

the officer’s affidavit and the motion to strike will be denied as moot.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Claimant’s motion to suppress the disclaimer (Doc. 34) is denied.

2. Claimant’s motion to suppress the officer’s affidavit (Doc. 42) is denied as

moot.

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 45 Filed 07/05/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

3. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the motion at Doc. 42 (Doc. 43) is denied as moot.

DATED this 1st day of July, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 45 Filed 07/05/11 Page 3 of 3