UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 v. CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CV-181-TLS 

$29,552.00 in U.S. CURRENCY, 

 Defendant, 

BRYANT T. DAVIS, 

 Claimant. 

ORDER AND OPINION 

 This is a civil action to forfeit and condemn to the use and benefit of the United States 

$29,552.00 in U.S. Currency (the Currency), which was seized during the execution of a search 

warrant on Claimant Bryant T. Davis’s residence. The Government alleges that the Currency is 

subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) because it was furnished in exchange for 

controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, and is traceable to such an 

exchange, or was used and intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Controlled 

Substances Act. The pro se Claimant became involved in this civil action when he responded to 

the Government’s Verified Complaint in Rem [ECF No. 1] by filing a claim to the Currency and 

a Verified Answer to the Complaint [ECF No. 5]. 

On December 2, 2016, the Claimant filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Return of 

Property to Claimant [ECF No. 22].1

 On January 17, 2017, the Court denied the Claimant’s 

Motion and its duplicate, but provided the Claimant with leave to file a motion to suppress, if 

 

1

 The same Motion was entered on the docket on December 5, 2016 [ECF No. 23]. 
2 

warranted. In response, on March 17, 2017, the Claimant filed the pending Memorandum of Law 

in Support of Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 26].2 The Claimant maintains that there was no 

probable cause to seize his property because the Government’s three cooperating sources 

provided false information “while doing [drug] deals and under the influence.” (Mem. of Law in 

Supp. of Mot. to Suppress 5, ECF No. 26). The Claimant thus seeks to suppress the information 

obtained from the Government’s sources. (Id.) The Government filed a Response to the 

Claimant’s Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 27] on March 31, 2017, arguing that the Claimant 

“failed to provide any evidence, legal authority or cogent argument for suppressing the warrant. 

Alternatively . . . the facts and circumstances were sufficient to establish probable cause for 

issuance of the search warrant.” (Resp. to Mot. to Suppress 1). Though given leave by the Court 

[ECF No. 30], the Claimant did not file a reply. 

ANALYSIS 

 It is well established that pro se litigants are not held to the same standard as a counseled 

litigant, Glick v. Gutbord, 782 F.2d 754, 755 n. 1 (7th Cir. 1986), however, the Court is not 

“obligat[ed] to do [the Claimant’s] research or make arguments for him.” Sanders v. Town of 

Porter Police Dep’t, No. 2:05-CV-377, 2006 WL 2457251, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 22, 2006) 

(citing United States v. Smith, 26 F.3d 739, 743 (7th Cir.1994)); see also Mathis v. New York Life 

Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir. 1998). If a litigant fails to make a sound argument or file 

legal arguments with supporting authority, the litigant effectively waives the argument. See 

Mathis, 133 F.3d at 548 (holding that even pro se litigants are expected to file legal arguments 

with supporting authority because “[a] litigant who fails to press a point by supporting it with 

 

2

 The Claimant did not file a separate motion. 
3 

pertinent authority or by showing why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority forfeits 

the point”). 

 Though the Claimant is correct that a warrant cannot be issued in the absence of probable 

cause to justify a search, see e.g., United States v. Robinson, 2008 WL 4659369, at *3 (7th Cir. 

2008), the Claimant has not articulated an argument challenging probable cause. Probable cause 

exists when the totality of the circumstances known at the time are sufficient for a reasonably 

prudent officer to believe evidence of a crime or contraband will be found in the place to be 

searched. Id. If a judge who issued a warrant found probable cause based on an affidavit, then 

“the warrant’s validity rests on the strength of the affidavit.” United States v. Wiley, 475 F.3d 

908, 915 (7th Cir. 2007). When reviewing an issuing judge’s finding, the Court pays “great 

deference” to the issuing judge, United States v. McIntire, 516 F.3d 576, 578–79 (7th Cir. 2008) 

(quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983)), and evaluates only whether the judge had a 

“substantial basis” for concluding that probable cause existed. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 

257, 271 (1960). 

 Here, Fort Wayne Police Department Detective Shane Heath’s Affidavit (Detective 

Heath Affidavit, ECF No. 27-1) provided the basis upon which the search warrant [ECF No. 27-

2] was requested. Detective Heath’s Affidavit details the corroborating information provided by 

all three of the Government’s cooperating sources identifying the Claimant as keeping the 

Currency obtained from drug sales in his home. (see Detective Heath Affidavit 5–6). Moreover, 

one of the cooperating sources identified the Claimant in a photo array and the Fort Wayne 

Police Department determined the Claimant’s residence through his Bureau of Motor Vehicles 

record, property ownership listed at the Allen County Assessor’s Office, and surveillance by 

Detective Jeremy Ormiston. (Id.). 
4 

 The Court finds that the information provided in Detective Heath’s Affidavit justified the 

search and seizure authorized by the warrant because all three of the Government’s sources 

stated that the Claimant picked up the drug proceeds from his father and kept them in his house. 

See United States v. Barnes, 909 F.2d 1059 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that probable cause for the 

issuance of search warrant existed on the basis of consistency in the information provided by the 

Government’s confidential sources). Additionally, the Claimant’s residence was identified 

through numerous means and verified through the use of surveillance. 

 Furthermore, the Claimant offers no evidence to support suppression of the information 

provided by the Government’s cooperating witnesses; instead, the Claimant offers a conclusory 

allegation that the information from the Government’s three cooperating sources was false 

because they were under the influence of drugs. The Claimant offers no evidence to demonstrate 

how he is able to ascertain the alleged mental impairment of any of the three cooperating 

sources, nor does the Claimant cite to authority indicating that suppression on the basis of an 

allegation of mental impairment is warranted. 

Accordingly, there was probable cause to justify the search and seizure of the Claimant’s 

home. 

CONCLUSION 

 For these reasons, the Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 26] is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED on July 11, 2017. 

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT