Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01091/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01091-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 28:1355 Petition for Return of Property

---

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 10cv0025 BTM(JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY CASE NO. 11cv1091 BTM(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY

TAYLOR ARTIS and EDWARD

DOUGLAS, JR.,

Movants.

Movants Taylor Artis and Edward Douglas, Jr., have filed a Motion for Return of

Seized Property. For the reasons set forth below, Movants’ motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2011, at the San Diego International Airport, officers of the San Diego

Integrated Narcotics Task Force (“NTF”) seized $12,819.00 in U.S. currency from movant

Edward Douglas and $8,608.00 in U.S. currency from Taylor Artis. The currency was seized

for forfeiture as suspected drug proceeds. Douglas and Artis each received a receipt for the

seized currency at the time of seizure. (Movants’ Ex. 2.)

Douglas and Artis filed timely administrative claims dated February 11, 2011 for the

return of the currency. (Movants’ Exs. 3 & 4.) The DEA received the claims on February 14,

2011. (Movants Ex. 5.)

The DEA referred the matter to the United States Attorney for the Southern District

of California. After review, the United States Attorney decided not to file a civil forfeiture

Case 3:11-cv-01091-BTM-RBB Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 4
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

2 10cv0025 BTM(JMA)

action. The matter was declined and returned to DEA.

On May 18, 2011, Movants commenced this action.

II. DISCUSSION

Movants contend that they are entitled to the immediate return of their currency under

18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). The Court agrees.

Section 983(a)(3)(A) provides:

Not later than 90 days after a claim has been filed, the Government shall file

a complaint for forfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules for

Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the property pending the filing

of a complaint, except that a court in the district in which the complaint will be

filed may extend the period for filing a complaint for good cause shown or upon

agreement of the parties.

(B) If the Government does not--

(i) file a complaint for forfeiture or return the

property, in accordance with subparagraph (A); or

(ii) before the time for filing a complaint has

expired--

(I) obtain a criminal indictment

containing an allegation that the

property is subject to forfeiture; and

(II) take the steps necessary to

preserve its right to maintain custody

of the property as provided in the

applicable criminal forfeiture statute,

the Government shall promptly release the property pursuant to regulations

promulgated by the Attorney General, and may not take any further action to

effect the civil forfeiture of such property in connection with the underlying

offense. 

(Emphasis added.)

There is no dispute that the Government did not, within 90 days after the filing of

Movants’ claims, file a complaint for civil forfeiture, move for an enlargement of the 90-day

period, obtain a criminal indictment alleging that the property is subject to forfeiture, or return

the property. Therefore, the Government is required to promptly release the property.

The Government contends that although it is ready and willing to return the seized

Case 3:11-cv-01091-BTM-RBB Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 4
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 10cv0025 BTM(JMA)

currency, under 31 U.S.C. § 3716, the DEA is required to collect the payee’s personal

indentifying information before making a payment. The Government explains that on May

24, 2011, the DEA sent letters with enclosures to Movants’ legal counsel, explaining the

requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3716 and requesting identifying information including true name,

date of birth, and social security number or tax identification number. Movants have not

provided the DEA with this information.

Under the Debt Collection Improvement act of 1996 (DCIA), 31 U.S.C. § 3716, the

Department of the Treasury and “any disbursing official of the United States designated by

the Secretary of the Treasury” are required to offset Federal payments to collect delinquent

non-tax debts owed to the United States or delinquent child-support debts enforced by

states. The Financial Management Service of the Treasury Department operates a Treasury

Offset Program (“TOP”), which centralizes the offset of Federal payments to collect

delinquent non-tax debts owed to Federal agencies. 31 C.F.R. § 285.5. The Government

contends that Movants must provide their identifying information because the taxpayer

identifying number and name are used by TOP to determine whether the payee is “matched”

to a debt in the system. See 31 C.F.R. § 285.5(b).

The Court is not convinced that the currency at issue is subject to administrative offset

under 31 U.S.C. § 3716. Payments eligible for offset include all eligible “Federal payments”

including “Federal wage, salary, and retirement payments, vendor and expense

reimbursement payments, certain benefit payments, travel advances and reimbursements,

grants, fees, refunds, judgments (including those certified for payment pursuant to 31 U.S.C.

1304), tax refunds, and other payments made by Federal agencies.” 31 C.F.R. § 285.5(e).

A “disbursing official” means “an official who has authority to disburse public money.” 31

C.F.R. § 285.5 (b).

Here, the currency was in the custody of the Federal government pending the

determination of whether it was subject to seizure. After the 90-day period, Movants were

entitled to the return of their property. The Court does not believe that the return of seized

currency constitutes a “Federal payment.” The return of property is not a payment of

Case 3:11-cv-01091-BTM-RBB Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 3 of 4
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

4 10cv0025 BTM(JMA)

benefits, “refund,” or “reimbursement” from public money.

Because 31 U.S.C. § 3716 does not apply, the Government cannot condition the

return of the currency on Movants providing identifying information. Movants have produced

the receipts for the currency and there does not appear to be any dispute that Movants are

the individuals from whom the currency was seized. Therefore, Movants are entitled to the

immediate return of the currency.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Movants’ Motion for Return of Seized Property is

GRANTED. Within 48 hours of the entry of this Order the United States shall return

$8,600.00 to Taylor Artis and $12,880.00 to Edward Douglas, Jr. The Clerk shall enter

judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 23, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01091-BTM-RBB Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 4 of 4