IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

$6,600.00 IN UNITED STATES 

CURRENCY, in rem, 

Defendant. 

S. AMANDA MARSHALL 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ANNEMARIE SGARLATA 

Assistant United States Attorney 

1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2902 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BRIAN L. MICHAELS 

259 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 300-D 

Eugene, Oregon 97401 

Attorney for Claimant Sean Beeman 

MARSH, Judge 

3:12-cv-01624-MA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

In this civil forfeiture proceeding, claimant Sean Beeman 

moves to suppress all evidence obtained from a parcel delivered to 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 1 of 11
claimant's home, including the defendant currency. For the reasons 

set forth below, claimant's motion is denied. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

The material facts are undisputed. 1 On March 13, 2012, Postal 

Inspector Scott Helton intercepted a U.S. Mail express parcel 

addressed to claimant at the Portland Air Cargo Center in Portland, 

Oregon. An inquiry of a law enforcement database revealed that the 

name of the sender, "Tyson Shatswe1l,n was not associated with the 

listed return address. Inspector Helton sought the assistance of 

Nikko, a certified controlled substance detection dog, and Officer 

Scott C. Groshong, Nikko's certified handler. Outside of Officer 

Groshong and Nikko's presence, Inspector Helton arranged the parcel 

in a deployment line along with five similar control parcels. Upon 

examining the deployment line, Nikko alerted on the subject parcel 

in the manner he has been trained to do when he detects the odor of 

a controlled substance. Nikko did not alert to any other parcel in 

the deployment line. 

The next day, Inspector Helton, along with other officers in 

the Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team ( INET) went to the 

address of the intended recipient of the parcel in Eugene, Oregon 

at approximately 3:45 in the afternoon. Be,fore going to the 

1 Because the facts are undisputed, this motion is 

appropriate for resolution without an evidentiary hearing. 

United States v. Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir. 

2007) . 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 2 of 11
residence, INET Detective Jacob Luquin inquired with the Oregon 

Nedical Narijuana Program (ONIVIP) at 11:40 that morning to determine 

whether claimant was registered with ONNP. At 12: 00, the ONNP 

responded that claimant was registered as a patient, as well as a 

caregiver for 15 other patients, of whom claimant was listed a 

grower for four. Inspector Helton did not recall specifically 

asking Det. Luquin to make the inquiry with ONNP, but it was 

information he found relevant to his investigation of the parcel. 

Upon arriving at the recipient address listed on the parcel, 

Det. Luquin and Inspector Helton contacted claimant outside the 

residence. Claimant stated that the express mail parcel contained 

$9,000 in cash that was payment of a loan from a friend. Det. 

Luquin asked if they could speak in private and began walking 

toward the front door, but claimant insisted on speaking outside. 

Det. Luquin asked claimant to whom he had loaned the money and for 

what purpose, but claimant refused to answer. 

When Det. Luquin asked if he could open the parcel, claimant 

unsuccessfully tried to grab it from him. Claimant asked the 

officers if he needed an attorney, at which point Det. Luquin 

advised claimant of his Niranda rights, informed him that he was 

not under arrest, and said that he had a right to contact an 

attorney if he desired to do so. At that point, claimant called 

his attorney on his cellular telephone and granted consent to open 

the parcel. 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 3 of 11
The parcel contained two white envelopes. The first envelope 

had "DJ Pay 3500'' written on the outside and contained $3,500 in 

cash. The second envelope had "TS" written on the outside, and 

contained $3, 100 in cash and a note that read "Tyson 3100." 

Together, the currency found in the parcel constitutes the $6,600 

in currency at issue in this proceeding. When asked, claimant 

reported that "Ty" sent him the money in repayment of a loan 

claimant had given him to assist his return to Oklahoma after Ty 

visited claimant in Eugene to help with claimant's marijuana grow. 

Claimant said that Ty used the $9,000 loan to purchase a car in 

Eugene and drive it back to Oklahoma. 

Claimant again declined the officers' request to talk and 

count the money inside. While standing outside, Det. Luquin 

smelled fresh marijuana. Claimant told the officers that he is a 

medical marijuana patient, a grower for four patients, and a 

caregiver for a "whole bunch," and had some marijuana plants drying 

inside the house. 

While claimant spoke to counsel, Det. Luquin and another 

officer counted the money. At some point in the conversation, and 

apparently contrary to his prior statement, claimant told the 

officers that he was not consenting to their opening the parcel or 

counting the cash. 2 Claimant asked what was going to happen to the 

2 Claimant now concedes he consented to the opening of the 

parcel. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Suppress (#21) at 7, 10. 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 4 of 11
money, and asked the officers to speak with his attorney. The 

officers informed claimant that they were under no obligation to 

speak with his attorney, but did so in any event. Inspector Helton 

informed claimant's attorney that the money would be submitted for 

civil forfeiture. Claimant told Inspector Helton that he had a 

"closed mind" regarding the medical benefits of marijuana. 

Det. Luquin asked claimant for consent to search his 

residence, but claimant declined. After Det. Luquin advised 

claimant of his intention to apply for a search warrant for the 

residence, claimant said he would rather discuss a consent search. 

Det. Luquin asked claimant to speak with his attorney again before 

agreeing to a consent search. After claimant spoke with counsel, 

claimant and the officers agreed that the duration of any search 

would be limited to 30 minutes, and the scope would be limited to 

evidence of unlawful manufacturing or delivery of marijuana and 

money laundering. As claimant was reading the form, he commented 

about being coerced into allowing the search. Det. Luquin stopped 

claimant from signing the form unless his consent was voluntary. 

Claimant confirmed that he was consenting to the search 

voluntarily, and signed the consent form with the stipulations. 

To determine the amount of marijuana claimant was permitted to 

possess, the officers verified the extent of claimant's 

registration with OMMP. The search of claimant's home revealed a 

marijuana grow that was compliant with claimant's OMMP limits. 

5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 5 of 11
Officers did not seize any evidence from the house and concluded 

the search within the agreed time period. 

DISCUSSION 

Claimant argues the defendant currency should be suppressed 

for three reasons. First, claimant argues that the officers' 

initial inquiry into OMMP records violated his Fourth Amendment 

rights. Second, claimant asserts that his consent to open the 

parcel was involuntary. Finally, claimaDt maintains that the 

seizure of the defendant currency after the interaction at his home 

was not supported by probable cause. 

I. OMMP Records Inquiry 

Claimant moves to suppress "all evidence related to and 

contained in the package carrying [the] defendant currency" on the 

basis that the initial inquiry into O~JMP records revealing his 

participation was an unlawful search. Even assuming the initial 

OMMP inquiry violated Oregon law, and further assuming that 

claimant has .a reasonable expectation of privacy in OMMP records, 

the OMMP inquiry would not justify suppression of any of the 

evidence stemming from the officers' contact with claimant at his 

home. 

Consent to search "is tainted where the evidence indicates 

that it stemmed from the prior illegal Government action." United 

States v. Oaxaca, 233 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 2000). Suppression 

of evidence "is not justified unless 'the challenged evidence is in 

6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 6 of 11
some sense the product of the illegal governmental activity.'" 

Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 815 (1984) (quoting United 

States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 471 (1980)). Thus, "evidence will 

not be excluded as 'fruit' unless the illegality is at least the 

'but for' cause of the discovery of the evidence." Id.; see also 

United States v. Pulliam, 405 F. 3d 782, 785-87 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Here, there is no evidence the OMMP inquiry was even a "but 

for" dause of obtaining plaintiff's consent to open the parcel. 

Probable cause was not required for the brief seizure of the parcel 

for the purpose of deploying a narcotics detection canine. Quoc 

Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d at 1162. Once Nikko alerted to the parcel in 

the deployment line, probable cause supported the further seizure 

of the parcel based on (1) Nikko's alert; (2) the apparent mismatch 

between the name "Tyson Shatswell" and the listed return address; 

and (3) the sender's use of express mail, which Inspector Helton 

knew to be a common method of shipment in narcotics transactions. 

Declaration of Scott Helton at 3; see Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d at 

1158-59, 1162. 

With the properly seized parcel in hand, the officers traveled 

to claimant's home. There is no evidence that the officers' 

knowledge of claimant's OMMP participation in any way affected the 

course of the interaction that led to claimant granting consent to 

open the package. Indeed, claimant does not dispute that he was 

the first to mention his OMMP participation in his interaction with 

7 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 7 of 11
the officers. Thus, claimant's consent to open the parcel was not 

related to the OMMP inquiry that claimant alleges violated his 

Fourth Amendment rights, and his consent therefore cannot be 

tainted because it did not stem from any prior illegal government 

action. See Oaxaca, 233 F.3d at 1158. 

II. Voluntariness of Consent 

Claimant briefly argues that his consent to open the parcel 

was not voluntary. "Whether consent to search was voluntarily 

given is 'to be determined from the totality of all the 

circumstances.'" United States v. Patayan Soriano, 361 F.3d 494, 

501 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 

218, 222 (1973)). The court considers five factors in determining 

the voluntariness of consent to search: "' (1) whether defendant was 

in custody; (2) whether the arresting officers had their guns 

drawn; (3) whether Miranda warnings were given; (4) whether the 

defendant was notified that [he] had the right not to consent; and 

(5) whether the defendant had been told a search warrant could be 

obtained.'" Patayan Soriano, 361 F.3d at 502 (quoting United 

States v. Jones, 286 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2002)). No single 

factor is determinative, as they "are only guideposts, not a 

mechanized formula to resolve the voluntariness inquiry." Id. 

Claimant argues that the officers' allegedly unlawful OMMP 

inquiry and the officers' seizure of the parcel rendered his 

consent involuntary. This argument is without merit. As discussed 

8 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 8 of 11
above, there is no evidence that the officers' knowledge of 

claimant's participation in OMMP led to claimant's consent to open 

the parcel. Moreover, the officers' mere possession of the parcel 

pursuant to a seizure supported by probable cause does not amount 

to "coercion" sufficient to render consent involuntary. 

Application of the five factors makes clear that claimant's 

consent was voluntary. As the officers informed him shortly before 

claimant granted consent, claimant was not in custody. The 

officers did not have their guns diawn and were not physically 

intimidating claimant in any way. Despite being assured he was not 

in custody, the officers took the additional step of informing 

claimant of his Miranda rights. Claimant was not notified of his 

right to withhold consent, but the officers did assure him that he 

was welcome to call his attorney and informed him of his Miranda 

rights. With respect to opening the parcel, claimant was not told 

in a threatening manner that a search warrant could be obtained. 

See Patayan Soriano, 361 F.3d at 504-05. Thus, the application of 

the factors militates strongly toward finding that consent was 

voluntary. The mere fact of the officers' seizure of the parcel 

does not overcome the strong indicia throughout the encounter that 

claimant's consent was freely given. 

III. Probable Cause to Seize the Defendant Currency 

Finally, claimant argues that the officers lacked probable 

cause to seize the defendant currency after the parcel had been 

9 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 9 of 11
opened and his home searched. I disagree. The following facts 

known to the officers at the end of the interaction at claimant's 

home establish that "the facts available to [them] would 'warrant 

a person of reasonable caution in the belief'" that the defendant 

currency represented the proceeds of an illegal narcotics 

transaction. Florida v. Harris, u.s. 133 S.Ct. 1050, 1055 

(2013) (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983) (plurality 

opinion)). A law enforcement database indicated the name listed 

with the return address on the parcel was not associated with that 

address. A narcotics detection canine alerted to the odor of 

narcotics emanating from the parcel. 3 The parcel contained a large 

amount of currency. Claimant's explanation that the currency was 

$9, 000 in repayment of a loan to "Ty" was inconsistent with the 

parcel containing $6,600 in payment from what appeared to be two 

different people. Claimant had access to saleable quantities of 

marijuana through his participation in OMMP. 4 The parcel 

originated from out of state, where OMMP does not apply. Finally, 

3 Claimant's argument that Nikko's alert does not contribute 

to a finding of probable cause is meritless. Claimant does not 

dispute that Nikko is properly trained and certified. See Pl.'s 

Resp. to Claimant's Mot. to Suppress (#27) exh. B. The alert of 

a certified narcotics detection canine supports a finding of 

probable cause. Harris, 133 S.Ct. at 1055-58. 

4 Claimant neither disputes that he informed the officers of 

his participation in OMMP, nor argues that the later inquiry of 

OMMP records was illegal. 

10 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 10 of 11
claimant had marijuana at his home, albeit in a quantity compliant 

with OMMP regulations. 

These facts, along with the officers' knowledge based on their 

training and experience, are sufficient to establish ~the kind of 

'fair probability'" that the defendant currency constituted 

proceeds of an illegal drug transaction ~on which 'reasonable and 

prudent [people, ] not legal technicians, act. ' " Id. (quoting 

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235 (1983)) (alteration in 

original) . The seizure of the defendant currency after the 

interaction at claimant's home was supported by probable cause. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, claimant's Motion to Suppress (#20, 

#23) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ~ day of December, 2013. 

tff~~z;e~ Malcolm F. Marsh 

United States District Judge 

11 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 35 Filed 12/04/13 Page 11 of 11