IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:06-cv-0736-WKW

)

SEVENTY-FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN )

HUNDRED DOLLARS ($74,700) )

IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the court on the submission of trial briefs by the parties and a

stipulation for the court to decide the case on its merits on the basis of the evidence presented

at a hearing held September 6, 2007. After carefully reviewing the submissions of the

parties, the court finds, for the reasons set forth below, that the defendant currency is due to

be forfeited to the United States.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During March 2006, the Montgomery Police Department received information

regarding George E. Jones, Jr. (hereinafter “Claimant”), and his alleged drug activities.

Surveillance was established at the Claimant’s residence at 5304 West Shades Valley Drive,

Montgomery, Alabama (hereinafter “the residence”). (Mot. Hr’g Tr. 6.) On the morning of

March 31, 2006, while watching the residence, Sergeant Vanessa Wright observed a female

leave the house. Subsequently, she observed a male pull into the residence’s driveway in a

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 44 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 1 of 10
2

pickup truck, exit the vehicle, and enter the residence. (Id.) Later that morning, at 8:40 a.m.,

a document search warrant was issued by the municipal court. Once Sergeant Wright became

aware of the issuance of the search warrant, she alerted other officers that they could

approach the residence. (Id. at 7.) Subsequently, Lieutenant Crockett and Corporal Shon

Wright arrived at the residence. Claimant and Otis Jones, driver of the pickup truck, were

in the front yard. As Lieutenant Crockett and Corporal Wright approached the pickup truck,

Claimant fled. The two officers chased Claimant into the residence’s backyard and over the

back fence. (Id. at 43.) While in pursuit, Claimant reached into his pocket and threw down

a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. (Id. at 44.) Forensic tests later

conducted upon the contents of the bag determined the substance to be cocaine. (Doc. # 41-

2.) The chase lasted less than two minutes before Claimant was taken into custody. (Mot.

Hr’g Tr. 45.) While the other two officers were attending to Claimant, Sergeant Wright took

Otis Jones into custody for officer safety and approached the residence. Other officers

arrived at the residence to conduct a preliminary search for any additional subjects in the

house. During the preliminary search, Officer Wheeler noted a large quantity of currency in

a paper bag located under the bed in a back bedroom. (Id. at 72.) A search of the pickup

truck parked in the driveway produced two plastic bags of cocaine in a baseball cap, and a

firearm. (Doc. # 15-3, at 10.)

After taking Claimant into custody, Lieutenant Crockett entered the residence to

inform other officers that Claimant had discarded drugs during the chase. The officers

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 44 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 2 of 10
3

proceeded to get a second search warrant for drugs, which was issued at 11:25 a.m. (Doc.

# 15-3, at 11-12.) Once that search warrant was obtained, a more thorough search of the

residence revealed a plastic bag containing cocaine underneath a bathroom sink. (Mot. Hr’g

Tr. 76.) 

On August 15, 2006, the United States of America filed a complaint of forfeiture

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(6)(a), alleging that the seventy-four thousand seven hundred

dollars ($74,700) in United States currency (herein “defendant currency”) found at the

residence constituted monies furnished, or intended to be furnished, in exchange for

controlled substances, or represented the proceeds of trafficking in controlled substances or

was used or intended to be used to facilitate violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq.

Subsequently, Claimant filed a claim and an answer asserting his lawful ownership of the

defendant currency. (Docs. # 6 & # 7.)

Claimant filed a motion to suppress certain evidence and statements arising out of his

arrest, search of his residence, and subsequent interrogation. (Doc. # 15.) The court held a

hearing on the motion to suppress on September 6, 2007. At the hearing, the government

introduced pictures of items recovered during the search, the warrants, and testimony of

participating officers. Claimant offered no evidence and failed to challenge in any way the

probable cause determination of either warrant. Moreover, Claimant did not offer or identify

evidence in support of his contentions that the warrants were vague, overbroad, or lacking

in sufficient descriptiveness. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the court

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 44 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 3 of 10
 Claimant filed a Motion to Strike From Consideration on Trial by Stipulation (Doc. # 39),

1

seeking to strike certain evidence from the court’s consideration of the case on the merits; specifically,

the claim seeks to strike “the affidavit for search warrant and all references thereto, from the

[suppression] hearing” because “certain hearsay evidence . . . is inadmissible.” (Doc. # 39.) The motion

is due to be granted to the extent it asks the court to exclude inadmissible hearsay from consideration.

4

found probable cause existed for the warrants; that the warrants were not overbroad, vague,

or lacking in descriptiveness; and that the results of the search, including statements

following the arrest of Claimant, were not due to be suppressed. Claimant’s motion to

suppress was denied. (Doc. # 28.) Upon resolution of the motion to suppress, the parties

stipulated to submit the matter to the court for a decision based upon the transcript of the

suppression hearing and the trial briefs. (Doc. # 38.) The parties have submitted their trial

briefs (Docs. # 40 & # 41) and the case is now ripe for decision.1

II. JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C.§ 1345 and § 1355. Venue is proper pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1395 and 21 U.S.C. § 881(j).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The government brings this action pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). This section

states that “all moneys . . . in exchange for a controlled substance . . . , all proceeds traceable

to such an exchange, and all moneys . . . used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation

of [the drug laws]” is “subject to forfeiture to the United States.” 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). 

To carry its burden, the government must “establish, by a preponderance of the

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 44 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 4 of 10
 “The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence, the most common 2

standard in the civil law, simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more

probable than its nonexistence before he may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade

the judge of the fact’s existence.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension

Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see also

United States v $52,000.00, More or Less, in U.S. Currency, 508 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1039 (S.D. Ala.

2007). 

5

evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Where, as here, 2

“the property was used to commit or facilitate . . . or was involved in the commission of a

criminal offense,” it must be proved that “a substantial connection between the property and

the offense” exists. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3). In proving a substantial connection, “[t]he

government may use evidence gathered [before and] after the filing of the complaint,” 18

U.S.C. § 1983(c)(2), and may introduce circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Four

Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428, 1440 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. $22,991.00,

More or Less, in U.S. Currency, 227 F. Supp. 2d. 1220, 1231 (S.D. Ala. 2002). However,

the government is not required to “connect the defendant currency to any particular drug

transaction,” or proffer evidence that “point[s] to drugs to the exclusion of all other theories.”

United States v. $121,100 in U.S. Currency, 999 F.2d 1503, 1508 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). 

In evaluating the evidence, the court must apply a common sense view of the realities

of normal life to the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Carrell, 252 F.3d

1193, 1201 (11th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. $433,980.00 in U.S. Currency, 473

F. Supp. 2d 685, 690 (E.D.N.C. 2007) (“[I]t is not enough to point out possible problems

with the separate factors underlying the Government’s case, as all the evidence – both direct

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 44 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 5 of 10
 Claimant has not asserted the innocent owner defense; thus, it is not applicable to the instant 3

forfeiture.

6

and circumstantial – can and should be evaluated by the Court as a whole.”). Courts have

been cautioned in civil forfeiture proceedings “not to dissect strands of evidence as discrete

and disconnected occurrences.” $22,991.00, 227 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). If the government carries its burden, the property will be

forfeited unless the claimant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he is an innocent

owner in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 983(d). See United States v. Cleckler, 270 F.3d 1331,

1334 (11th Cir. 2001).3

B. Analysis

The United States has carried its burden of proof, which warrants the forfeiture of the

defendant currency. The totality of the circumstances persuades the court that a

preponderance of the evidence exists to show that the defendant currency is subject to

forfeiture. In this case, the Government argues that the following evidence makes it more

likely than not that the $74,700 was substantially connected to drug trafficking: (1) the large

amount of currency and cocaine found at the residence; (2) Claimant’s possession of cocaine

on his person; and (3) cocaine, a firearm, currency, and drug wrappings with drug residue

found at the residence and in the pickup truck visiting the residence. The court concludes

that the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the currency, including the presence of

drugs, provides the critical nexus to drug trafficking. As derived from the court’s findings

of fact, the court addresses and weighs the legal significance of each of the factors below.

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 44 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 6 of 10
7

1. Defendant Currency

During the March 31, 2006 incident giving rise to this forfeiture proceeding, law

enforcement officials recovered $74,700 from Claimant’s residence (Doc. # 15-3, at 10), an

extraordinarily large amount of currency to be found in one’s home. United States v.

$29,959.00 in U.S. Currency, 931 F.2d 549, 553 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Cash amounting to

$29,959.00 is an ‘extremely large amount’ to be kept in the home.”) It is well-established

under civil forfeiture law that the possession of large sums of currency is strong evidence of

drug trafficking. $242,484.00, 389 F.3d at 1161; $121,100.00, 999 F.2d at 1507; $52,000,

508 F. Supp. 2d at 1044. The court finds this to be highly probative, though not dispositive,

circumstantial evidence of a link between the defendant currency and illegal drug trafficking.

2. Claimant’s Discarded Cocaine

It is undisputed fact that while being chased by two law enforcement officers,

Claimant threw down a plastic bag containing cocaine. Claimant’s possession of drugs is

another circumstance that weighs against him. United States v. $84,615 in U.S. Currency,

379 F.3d 496, 502 (8th Cir. 2004) (possession of illegal drugs at time of money discovery

weighed against claimant); United States v. Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars in U.S.

Currency, 258 F.3d 215, 224 (3rd. Cir. 2001) (“[C]laimants’ possession of drugs or drug

paraphernalia at the time of the seizure . . . would support the government’s theory that the

money in claimants’ possession is connected to illegal drug trafficking.”); United States v.

$149,442.43 in U.S. Currency, 965 F.2d 868, 877 (10th Cir. 1992) (“The unusually large

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 44 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 7 of 10
8

amount of hidden currency [and] the presence of drug paraphernalia . . . establishes a

sufficient nexus between the defendant property and claimant[’s] involvement in drug

trafficking.”) 

3. Cocaine, a Firearm, Currency, and Drug Wrappings with Residue 

Found at the Residence and in the Pickup Truck Visiting the Residence

Pursuant to two search warrants, law enforcement officers found cocaine as well as

drug wrappings with residue at the residence. Such drugs and drug paraphernalia found in

close proximity to currency is yet another factor indicative of a substantial connection

between the currency and drug trafficking. $29,959.00, 931 F.2d at 553 (finding that in

addition to large amounts of currency found in the home, “[d]rugs and drug paraphernalia

found in the yard and adjacent trailer are also strong evidence of a drug operation”).

Claimant has not introduced any evidence rebutting the government’s proof, nor has

he offered an innocent owner defense. However, he makes two arguments in support of his

claim. First, he asserts the government has failed to meet its burden and that the motion to

suppress should have been granted. This issue was resolved by previous order (Doc. # 28),

and Claimant has failed to come forward with any evidence that the warrants were vague,

overbroad, or lacking in sufficient descriptiveness.

Second, Claimant contends that the government has failed to establish that the money

was not honestly earned through legitimate employment. Pointing out ambiguities and

potentially innocent explanations surrounding the government’s proof is insufficient to rebut

the government’s proof. $433,980, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 690; see also United States v.

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 44 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 8 of 10
9

$41,580.00 in U.S. Currency, 253 Fed. Appx. 880, 882 (11th Cir. Nov. 9, 2007) (holding that

claimant’s denial of drug-dealing along with assertions that the seized cash was “legitimate”

and had come from a business account were “non-responsive” to government’s complaint).

Moreover, Claimant offers no explanation for how he legitimately amassed the large sum of

money seized from his residence, which strongly suggests he was involved in illegal activity.

The amount of currency and lack of evidence of a legitimate income are highly probative of

a substantial connection with illegal drug trafficking. See United States v. $174,206.00, 320

F.3d 658, 662 (6th Cir. 2003) (finding that a lack of legitimate income sufficient to explain

large amounts of cash “unrebutted by any evidence pointing to any other source of legitimate

income or any evidence indicating innocent ownership, satisfies the burden imposed by the

statute [to establish a substantial connection]”). 

Viewing these factors in context and based on the totality of the circumstances, the

court concludes that the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that the

defendant currency found at Claimant’s residence is substantially connected to illegal drug

trafficking and is thus due to be forfeited.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, judgment is due to be entered in favor of

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 44 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 9 of 10
10

plaintiff United States and the defendant currency is due to be forfeited to the United States.

An appropriate judgment will be entered. It is ORDERED that (1) the claimant’s motion to

strike (Doc. # 39) is GRANTED and (2) the United States shall file a proposed Decree of

Forfeiture on or before April 25, 2008.

DONE this 18th day of April, 2008.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 44 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 10 of 10