Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02097/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02097-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

ATTACHMENT “B” is a detailed list of items to be searched for and 1

seized that relate to possession and/or distribution of a controlled

substance; or a conspiracy to do such; structuring or money laundering

designed to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or

control of proceeds of a controlled substance, or to avoid a transaction

reporting requirement.

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

JOSE P. MANCILLA, SR.

and HORTENCIA H. MANCILLA PLAINTIFFS

v. 05-CV-2097

MIKI MOLNAR, a DEA Task Force Officer;

PAUL SMITH, a DEA Task Force Officer;

and WES HEARON, a DEA Task Force Officer DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Currently before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) and Plaintiffs’ response (Doc. 21).

Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) should

be dismissed as they have failed to state claims upon which relief

may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs bring

this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Plaintiffs allege a violation of their Fourth Amendment

rights. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motion is

GRANTED and Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. 

Background

On June 9, 2004, Defendants executed a search warrant on

Plaintiffs’ residence, 108 South 44 Street, Van Buren, Arkansas. th

The search warrant described the property as: 

“(SEE ATTACHMENT “B”) which contraband/property/records 1

Case 2:05-cv-02097-RTD Document 22 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
Affidavit of Task Force Officer Paul Smith was filed under seal and not 2

attached to the search warrant. (Doc. 15 ¶ 11.)

Page 2 of 5

are fruits and instrumentalities evidencing acts in

violations of Title 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1) and 846,

Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1956(a) and 1956(h), Title 31

U.S.C. Section 5324(a) as evidence[d] by the Affidavit2

of Task Force Officer Paul Smith attached to the

Application and Affidavit for Search Warrant, which are

incorporated by reference herein.” 

Defendants seized bank statements, cancelled checks, escrow and

loan papers, car titles, a cell phone, receipt book, phone books,

phone records, and miscellaneous records. (Doc. 15 Ex. A “Receipt

for cash or other items”.) Defendants also seized passports,

Mexican identification cards, U.S. and Mexican coins, a marriage

license, and miscellaneous documents. (Doc. 15 Ex. C.) All

documents seized were subsequently returned to Plaintiffs along

with a set of digital scales and a cell phone with charger. (Doc.

5 Ex. 2.) 

Plaintiffs contend “Attachment B” was not attached to the

search warrant and they were given no detailed description of the

items to be seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Defendants contend the search warrant complied with Fed. Rule Crim.

P. 41(e)(2) and that Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were not

violated.

Discussion

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a district court must accept

the allegations contained in the complaint as true, and all

reasonable inferences from the complaint must be drawn in favor of

the nonmoving party. Crumply-Patterson v. Trinity Lutheran

Hospital, 388 F.3d 588 (8 Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). th

Case 2:05-cv-02097-RTD Document 22 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
Plaintiffs do not contend, and we do not address, whether “Attachment 3

B” “particularly describ[ed]...the persons or things to be seized”.

Page 3 of 5

Dismissal is inappropriate unless it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief. Id. 

The Fourth Amendment provides that no search warrant shall

issue without probable cause “supported by Oath or affirmation, and

particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons

or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The particularity

requirement prevents “a general, exploratory rummaging in a

person’s belongings.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443,

467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). It also “assures the

individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful

authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the

limits of his power to search.” Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551,

561, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004). To satisfy the

particularity requirement of the amendment, a warrant must be

sufficiently definite to enable the searching officers to identify

the property that maybe seized. U.S. v. Lloyd, 396 F.3d 948 (8th

Cir. 2005). A search performed under a warrant that does not

particularize the items to be seized is unconstitutional. Id.

Plaintiffs contend that the search warrant did not meet the

Fourth Amendment’s unambiguous requirement that a warrant

“particularly describe...the persons or things to be seized”.

Plaintiffs contend “Attachment B” was not attached to the search

warrant. Plaintiffs cite Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 124 S.Ct. 3

1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004) in support of their contention. In

Case 2:05-cv-02097-RTD Document 22 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
Title 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a) states “[e]xcept as authorized by this 4

subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally -

(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to

manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or (2) to

create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or

dispense, a counterfeit substance.”

Title 21 U.S.C. Section 846 states “[a]ny person who attempts or

conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter shall be subject to

the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of

which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1956(a) deals with laundering of monetary 5

instruments, 1956(h) deals with conspiracy to commit laundering of monetary

instruments or conspiracy to engage in monetary transactions in property

derived from specified unlawful activity. 

Title 31 U.S.C. Section 5324(a) deals with structuring transactions to 6

evade reporting requirement prohibited - domestic coin and currency

transactions involving financial institutions.

Page 4 of 5

Groh, the Supreme Court held that a search warrant that failed to

describe the persons or things to be seized was invalid on its

face, notwithstanding that requisite particularized description was

provided in search warrant application. Groh, 540 U.S. at 556.

However, Groh is distinguishable from the instant case because the

search warrant in Groh did not describe the items to be seized at

all. In our case, a description is provided on the face of the

warrant which Plaintiffs contend is inadequate. 

The warrant identified the property to be searched as those

things that were fruits and instrumentalities evidencing acts in

violations of Title 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1) and 846 , Title 18 4

U.S.C. Sections 1956(a) and 1956(h) and Title 31 U.S.C. Section 5

5324(a) . Plaintiffs contend the warrant authorized a general 6

search because the agents seized not only financial and tax

documents, but immigration papers, passports, insurance documents,

marriage licenses, old report cards, bank statements unrelated to

the accounts at issue, VCR manuals, title to property not listed in

Case 2:05-cv-02097-RTD Document 22 Filed 06/02/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 5 of 5

the warrant, family pictures, U.S. and Mexican coins, and other

miscellaneous and irrelevant documents and materials. We find the

agents were limited in their seizure to property and records

dealing with money laundering and financial transactions related to

a controlled substance. The agents, in their search, might seize

irrelevant items and while we do not condone the seizure of items

not described in the warrant, we find these items were properly

seized as property and records which could be evidence of

violations of the stated statutes. “Where the precise identity of

goods cannot be ascertained at the time the warrant is issued,

naming only the generic class of items will suffice because less

particularity can be reasonably expected than for goods (such as

those stolen) whose exact identity is already known at the time of

issuance.” U.S. v. Wayne, 903 F.2d 1188, 1195 (8 Cir. 1990) th

(quoting U.S. v. Johnson, 541 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8 Cir. 1979)). th

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All

parties are to bear their own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 day of June, 2006. nd

/s/Robert T. Dawson

Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02097-RTD Document 22 Filed 06/02/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>