[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 38 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cr-0 00 31 -LGW -J EG-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DAMIAN JULIAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Afte r pl ead in g g ui lt y , Dam ian J ul ia n app eal s h is co nv ic ti on fortra ve li ng in Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 1 of 14in te rs ta te co m m erce with t he in te ntto pro m ot e, m an ag e, es tabl is h, o r carry on un la wfu l ac ti vi ty (a coc ai ne di strib ut io n c on sp ira cy ), in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 2( a)(3 ). On ap pe al , Ju li anch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s

1 m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce t ha t $ 21 ,01 5 i n c as h was fou ndon th e fro ntsea t o f a ve hi cl e h e was dri vi ng . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND A. Offe ns e Con duct On No ve m

be r 27 , 20 07 , Inv es ti ga to r W il li am W oo la rdof t he Cam de n Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce was pa tro ll in g In te rs ta te 95 (“ I-9 5” ) inCam de n C ou nt y , Geo rg ia . W oo la rdwas o n p atro l as pa rt o f a h ei gh te ne d d ru g i nt erd ic ti on pr og ram , andhe kn ew th atI-9 5 was a kn own dru g c orrid or . W oo la rdin it ia te d a tra ffi c st op of agre enCh ev ro le t Im pa lath atW oo la rdob se rv edfai li ng to m ai nt ai n a si ng le lan e. Defen da ntJu li anwas d riv in g t he Im pa laan d was th e so le oc cupa nt . W oo la rdap pr oa ch edth e v eh ic le an d re qu es te d J ul ia n’s d riv er’s l ic en se . W oo la rdth enlea rn edth atth e Im pa lawas aren ta l ca r, an d t ha t J ul ia n was ne it he r th e ren te r no r anau th or iz eddri ve r. The re nt al ag reem en t l is te d S ha ro n M il le r as th e ren te r. Altho ug h i t ap pe aredth atth e ren ta l ag reem en t was expi red , Ju li anto ld W oo la rdth athe ha d ju stren ewedit . J ulian does not appe al his 60-month sentence . 1 2 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 2 of 14W oo la rdex pl ai ne d t o J ul ia n wh y he pu ll edhi m

ov er, an d J ul ia n s ta te d t ha t hi s ca r “ was pu ll in g.” W oo la rdask edJu li anif h e h adbe enarre st edbe fo re, an d Ju li anrep li edth athe ha d b eenarre st edforsm ok in g m ari juan a. Ju li anfurth er st at ed , inres po ns e to W oo la rd ’s qu es ti on s, t ha t h e was tra ve li ng fro m Flo rid a to a reco rd in g s tu di o i n B ru ns wick , Geor gi a, an d t ha t h e was a m us ic pro du cer wh o tra ve le d fr eque nt ly. Ju li an , ho wev er, co ul d n otpro vi de th e stud io ’s st reetad dr es s. Ju li andi d kno w th atitwas l oc at ed“ of f of Exi t 3 8” an d o ffer edto tak e Wool ard th ere. Fo ll owi ng th is in it ia l p eri odof c on ve rs at io n, Woo la rdask edJu li anif h e co ul d s earc h t he Im

pa la . Ju li anga ve hi s co ns en t. Onap pe al , Ju li ando es no t ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs th athe co ns en te d t o t he sea rch of t he Im pa la an d t ha t Woo la rdha d p ro babl e cau se forth e tr affi c st op —n am el y , Ju li an ’s fai lu re to m ai nt ai n alan e an d u se a tu rnsi gn al . Rath er, J ul ian c ha ll en ge s o nl y th e d en ia l of hi s m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce o f th e cas h fo un d i n t he Im pa la . Dur in g t he sea rch , Ju li anst oo d b eh in d t he Im pa lawith h is ba ckto it(i.e ., in fro ntof andfaci ng W oo la rd ’s pat ro l ca r), a p os it io n t ha t Woo la rdth ou gh t was un us ua l, s in ce “ [m ]ostpe op le when y ou go in si de th ei r ve hi cl e th ey wantto watc h y ou do it .” Inhi s s earc h o f th e Im pa la , W oo lardfou nda cardbo ardbo x o n t he fro ntpa ss en ge r se atth atco nt ai ne d s om e lo os e cas h, as well as twen ty bun dl es of 3 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 3 of 14cas h wrapp edin rub be r ba nd s. Wool arddi d n otfin d a ny recei pt s o r ot he r

pape rwo rkrel at edto th e m on ey in th e Im pa la . W oo la rdto okth e b ox ou t o f th e Im pa la , pl acediton th e h oo d o f hi s p atro l ca r, an d re m ov edth e b un dl es of m on ey . Upo n d is co ve rin g t he fun ds , W oo la rdals o d et ai ne d J ul ia n b y ha nd cu ffi ng hi m an d p la ci ng hi m

in th e b ack se atof h is pa tro l ca r. W oo la rdth enreque st ed ad di ti on al po li ce as si st an ce, an d o th er l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers , as wel l as a po li ce do g, ca m e to th e si te of t he tra ffi c st op . W oo la rd , alo ng with the ot he r la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cers , con du ct eda m or e ex te ns iv e se arch of t he Im pa la . No o th er su sp ic io us it em s o r co nt rab an d wer e d is co ve red . There is no in di cat io n tha t t he po li ce d og ga ve a po si ti ve ale rt o n e it he r th e cas h o r th e Im pa la . Afte r W oo la rdga ve Ju li anMi ran da warn in gs , W oo la rdask edhi m ho w 2 m uc h m on ey

was i n the bo x. J ul ia n re sp on de d t ha t t he m on ey to ta le d ap pr ox im at el y

$2 0,0 00 .00 , andth athe ha d e arn editby pro du ci ng reco rd s. J ul ia n di d n otha ve an y

rece ip ts or p ap erwo rkdo cum en ti ng th e so ur ce o f th e cas h. W oo la rdlat er t es ti fie d t ha t, ea ch ti m e h e as ke d J ul ia n aqu es ti on , Ju li an

“ wou ldlo okdo wn an d a way .” Ju li anst oo d wi th hi s arm s fo ld edth e en ti re t im e, whi chW oo la rdco ns id eredun us ua l b ecau se m os t driv ers typic al ly let t he ir a rm s res t atth ei r si de s an d wer e g en eral ly m or e rel ax ed . W oo la rdals o o bs erv edth at Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. C t. 1602 (1966). 2 4 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 4 of 14th e m

us cl es aro un d J ul ia n’s eyes were twi tc hi ng . Howev er, Jul ia n’s o ve ral l de m ean orwas c al m , andhe co op erat edwith Woo la rddu rin g t he tra ffi c st op . Afte r W oo la rdco m

pl et edth e se arch an d c on cl ud edth e tr affi c st op , he pe rm it te d J ul ia n t o l eav e. W oo la rdto okpo ss es si on of o nl y th e cas h, l at er co un te d an d d et erm in edto be a su m of $ 21 ,01 5. Woo la rdlat er t es ti fie d t ha t h e ex pl ai ne d to Ju li anth atth e m on ey

was n otbe in g re tu rn edbe cau se W oo la rdha d s een no pape rwo rksubs ta nt ia ti ng it s o rig in an d d idno t kno w wher e itha d c om e fro m , or

“ if [ Ju li anha d] rob be d aba nk .” W oo la rdals o h adbe enun ab le to ve rif y Ju li an ’s oc cupa ti on or s ou rce o f in co m e, othe r th anby a bu si ne ss cardpro vi de d b y Ju li an , as th ere was no th in g e ls e in th e carto subs ta nt ia te Ju li an ’s cla im th athe was a m us ic pro du cer. Woo la rdfurth er t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adsev eral ti m es be fo re fo un d drug s al on g wi th lar ge su m s o f cas h t ha t wer e wrap pe d i n rubb er b an ds in $1 ,00 0- in crem en ts , si m il ar t o t he cas h fo un d i n t he Im pa la . Fo ll owi ng th e se iz ur e o f th e cas h, l aw en fo rcem en t t oo k t ha t ca sh to a ba nk an d h aditco nv ert edin to a cas hi er’s ch eck . This m on ey was l at er fo rfei te d pu rs ua ntto adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs aft er n o o ne cam e fo rwardto cla im it . The fo rfei tu re o f th e m on ey

is no t ch al le ng edin th is ap pe al eit he r. Agai n, t he on ly is su e is th e supp res si on of t he cas h i n t he cri m in al cas e ag ai ns t J ul ia n.

5 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 5 of 14B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

Ove r th ree years a fte r th e tr affi c st op , inMarc h 2 01 1 J ul ia n was ch arg edin a 2 1- de fen da nt , 4-c ou ntin di ct m en t tha t re la te d t o alar ge dru g d is tri bu ti on co ns pi racy. Howev er, as ex pl ai ne d b el ow, the in di ct m en t was lat er d is m is se d a s to Ju li an , andhe ul ti m at el y pl edgu il ty to a 1 -co un t i nf orm at io n t ha t co nt ai ne d on ly the § 1 95 2( a)(3 ) ch arg e atis su e in th is cri m in al cas e. Pri orto pl ead in g g ui lty

to th e in fo rm at io n, J ul ian fi le d am ot io n t o s up pr es s th e cas h s ei zeddu rin g the tra ffi c st op . Ju li anass ert edth atW oo la rd ’s sei zu re o f th e cas h fr om

th e Im pa lawas n otsupp orte d b y pro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atth e cas h was li nk edto dru gs or o th er i ll eg al act iv it y . Fo ll owi ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng an d s up pl em en ta l b rie fin g b y bo th pa rti es , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d J ul ia n’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s t he cas h. Sp eci fic al ly, th e di st ric t co urt i de nt ifi edth e fo ll owi ng sev enfact or s t ha t, u nd er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , pro vi de d p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atth e cas h was co nn ect edto anil le ga l dru g t ran sa ct io n: (1) th e subs ta nt ia l v al ue of the cas h; (2) th e co nd it io n of th e fu nd s, wh ic h h adbe en“ rubb er-b an de d i nt o b un dl es [an d] co nc eal edin a worn c ardbo ardbo x” ; (3 ) Ju li an ’s adm is si onto a pr ev io us na rco ti cs arre st ; (4 ) I-9 5, t he roa d o n wh ic h J ul ia n was tra ve li ng when W oo la rdin it ia te d t he tra ffi c st op , was a kno wn dru g c orrid or ; (5 ) Ju li an ’s unus ua l, n erv ou s b eh av io r du rin g t he 6 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 6 of 14st op ; (6 ) Ju li an ’s am bi gu ou s t rav el pl an s; an d (7 ) th e fac t t ha t J ul ia n was dri vi ng a ren te d c ar, an d h e was no t an au th or iz edus er o f th atcar u nd er the ren ta l ag reem en t. The reaf te r, th e g ov ern m en t an d J ul ia n e nt eredin to a pl ea ag reem en t. The go ve rn m en t fi le d an i nf

orm at io n u nd er a n ew cas e num be r, ch arg in g J ul ia n wi th on e co un t o f tr av el in g i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce with t he in te ntto pro m ot e, m an ag e, es tabl is h, o r carry

on un la wfu l ac ti vi ty (a coc ai ne di st rib ut io n c on sp ira cy ), in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 2( a)(3 ). Ju li anpl ead edgu il ty, pu rs ua ntto th e wri tt en pl ea ag reem en t, an d wai ve d h is rig htto anin di ct m en t. Inth e p le a ag reem en t, J ul ia n re se rv edhi s ri gh t t o app eal th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ni al of h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s t he cas h e vi de nc e. The i ni ti al in di ct m en t was di sm is se d a s t o J ul ia n upo n t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt ac cep te d Ju li an ’s gu il ty ple a, ad

jud ic at edJu li angu il ty of th e in fo rm at io n’s s ol e co un t, an d se nt en cedhi m

to 60 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The reaf

te r, Ju li anfil edth is ap pe al . II . DISCUSSI ON On ap pe al , Ju li anarg ue s tha t t he di stric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n to supp res s ev id en ce o f th e $ 21 ,01 5.0 0 s ei zedfro m hi s ca r du rin g t he tra ffi c st op . He as se rts th at , un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , Inv es ti ga to r W oo la rddi d no t h av e p ro babl e cau se to sei ze the fun ds as d ru g p ro ceed s, an d t hu s, t he cas h 7 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 7 of 14ev id en ce s ho ul d h av e b een supp res se d. 3

A. Our Preced ent A sei zu re o ccu rs when th ere i s a m ean in gf ul in te rfer en ce wi th a pe rs on ’s po ss es so ry

in te res t i n p ro pe rty. Uni te d S ta te s v . Vird en , 48 8 F .3d13 17 , 13 21 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (ho ld in g t ha t t he no n- co ns en su al sei zure o f th e d efen da nt ’s ve hi cl e was un reas on ab le ab se ntpro babl e cau se be cau se of i ts sco pe an d in tru si ve ne ss , in cl ud in g b ecau se th e se iz ur e was acco m pl is he d b y

m ov in g the ve hi cl e to a ne w lo cat io n fo r th e p ur po se s o f in ve st ig at io n) . A warran tl es s s ei zu re of pe rs on al pro pe rty in p la in vi ew is pe rm is si bl e u nd er the Fo urth Am en dm en t whe re o ffi cers ha ve pro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atth e p ro pe rty is c on traba nd . See Uni te d S ta te s v . Sm it h, 4 59 F.3d12 76 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Pro babl e cau se is a

“ reas on ab le gro un d fo r be li ef o f gu il t, s up po rte d b y les s than p rima facie pro of bu t m or e th anm ere s us pi ci on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . $2 42 ,48 4.0 0, 3 89 F.3d11 49 , 11 60 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (enbanc ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (ad dr es si ng th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re s ta tu te , 21 U.S.C. § 8 81 (a)( 6) , whi ch us es a pr ob ab le cau se st an da rd id en ti cal to th atem

pl oyed i n c riminal cas es in vo lv in g s ei zu res ). Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d a t t he ti m e o f a s ei zu re o f A district court’s r

uling on a motion to s uppress pre sents a mix ed question of law and 3 fac t, and we r eview the application of la w de novo a

nd the finding s of fa ct for c lear err or. United States v. L indsey , 482 F.3d 1285, 1290 ( 11th Cir. 2007). In so doing, w e view the fac ts “in the light most favor able to the pr evailingparty in [ the] dist rict cour

t.” I d. 8 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 8 of 14al le ge d d ru g p ro ceed s, we ev al ua te whet he r, gi ve n aco m m on se ns e v ie w of “ th e real it ie s o f no rm al li fe” a ndth e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th ere i s “pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th atth e m on ey is th e p ro ceed s o f, oris ot he rwis e co nn ect edto , an y il le ga l dru g tran sa ct io n.” Id. Ev enwher e th e ev id en ce p res en te d b y th e go ve rn m en t wo ul d s up po rt an a lt ern at iv e h y po th es is forth e so ur ce o f fund s, t hi s do es no t p rev en t t he ev id en ce fr om be in g p ro ba ti ve on th e is su e o f pr ob ab le cau se . Id . Furt he rm or e, we ha ve reject edth e arg um en t t ha t p ro babl e cau se was n eg at ed , as to m on ey

sei zedas d ru g p ro ceed s, b ecau se no dru gs were fo un d i n t he search th atun co ve redth e m on ey . See Un it edSta te s v . $4 1,3 05 .00 inCu rren cy & Trav el er’s Ch eck s, 8 02 F.2d13 39 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (n ot in g tha t “ [o ]ne m ay ex pe cta drug de al er t o h av e dru gs or m on ey or b ot h o n h an d” ). In$2 42 ,48 4.0 0, thi s C ou rt a ffi rm edth e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng th atth e go ve rn m en t es tabl is he d p ro babl e cau se th atth e cas h s ei zedfro m Debo rah St an fo rdwas d ru g p ro ceed s. 3 89 F.3dat 1 16 0, 1 16 8. St an fo rdwas c arrying a la rg e am ou ntof c urren cy , whi chwas rubb er-b an de d i nt o b un dl es in a ba ck pa ck , a m etho d o f tr an sp orta ti onno t u se d b y leg it im at e b us in es se s. Id . at 1 16 0- 62 . The cas h was sea le d i n c el lo ph an e an d C hr is tm as wrap pi ng pape r, a te ch ni qu e u se d b y co ur ie rs to pre ve ntde te ct io n b y dru g- sn iff

in g d og s an d t o c on ceal m on ey . Id. at 11 62 . Stan fo rdwas t rav el in g b etween New Yorkan d M ia m i, a fl ig htco rri do r 9 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 9 of 14of

te n u se d b y

dru g o rg an iz at io ns , andsh e p ur ch as edhe r ti ck etincas h andtwi ce ch an ge d h er re tu rnda te . Id. at11 62 -6 3. Ad di ti on al ly, St an fo rdwas n otab le to te ll ag en ts who ga ve he r th e cas h, wh ere s he pi ck editup , or wh ere s he st ay edin New York , andsh e to ldag en ts two co nf li ct in g s to rie s ab ou t wh y

sh e wen t t o New York andco ul d p ro du ce n o s up po rti ng do cu m en ta ti onforeit he r st ory or t he m on ey . Id. at11 63 -6 5. A d og tra in edto de te ctna rco ti cs ale rte d o n t he ba g co nt ai ni ng th e cu rren cy . Id. at11 65 -6 6. Fi na ll y , no on e ev er ca m e fo rwardto cl ai m th e m on ey . Id. at11 67 -6 8. InUni te d S ta te s v . $1 21 ,10 0.0 0 i n U.S. Cu rren cy , 99 9 F .2d15 03 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ), th is Co urt h el d t ha t t he lar ge qu an ti ty of cas h s ei zedfro m Fred eri ckFo st er, al th ou gh in su ffi ci en t b y

it se lf t o e st ab li sh pro babl e cau se , was h ig hl y pro ba ti ve of a co nn ect io n t o i ll eg al act iv it y . Id. at15 05 -0 7. Fo st er, wh o was in te rcep te d b y la w enf or cem en t ag en ts at t he air po rt, p ai d fo r hi s ro un d- tri p t ic ke t fr om Atl an tato New Yorkwith c as h u nd er a fa ls e fi rs t n am e. Id . at 1 50 5, 1 50 7. Mo reo ve r, he carr ie d m or e th an$1 00 ,00 0.0 0 fo r a s in gl e-d ay tri p a ndap pe aredne rv ou s wh en qu es ti on edby agen ts . Id. at15 07 . Fin al ly, Fo st er h ada hi st ory of n arco ti cs arre st s an d c on vi ct io ns , in cl ud in g a t l eas t t hr ee co nv ic ti on s fo r co nt ro ll ed subs ta nc e o ffen se s. Id . at 1 50 7- 08 . InUni te d S ta te s v . Boyce, 35 1 F .3d11 02 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ), th e cas e th at 10 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 10 of 14Ju li anurg es co nt ro ls he re, thi s C ou rt c on cl ud edth atth e arr es ti ng off ic er l ack ed reas on ab le su sp ic io n o f cri m in al act iv it y to de ta in th e d efen da ntm ot or is t b ey on d th e in it ia l t raff

ic st op . Id. at11 07 -0 8. Al th ou gh th e o ffi cer t es ti fie d tha t t he de fen da ntwas u nu su al ly nerv ou s dur in g t he st op , a vi de ot ap e o f th e st op be li ed th e o ffi cer’s t es ti m on y , su ch th atth e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y erre d i n fi nd in g t ha t t he de fen da ntwas u nu su al ly nerv ou s. Id . at 1 10 8- 09 (ex pl ai ni ng th e v id eo tape co nt rad ic te d t he off

ic er’s as se rti on s t ha t t he de fen da ntswea te d p ro fu se ly, was pa rti cu la rly tal ka ti ve , andpa ced ). Furth erm or e, al th ou gh th e o ffi cer f ou ndth e de fen da nt ’s tra ve l p la ns to vi si t an ex -g irl fri en d s us pi ci ou s, the de fen dant ex pl ai ne d wh y

he was v is it in g h er an d s uc h t rav el pl an s d idno t s ug ge stany cri m in al act iv it y . Id. at11 09 . W e co nc lu de d t ha t t he on ly two re m ai ni ng fact or s, th atth e d efen dantwas t rav el in g t hr ou gh a kn own dru g c orrid orin a ren ta l ca r an d th athe was p la nn in g t o re tu rnth e cartwo da y s l at e, were i ns uf fic ie ntun de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces to sh ow re as on ab le su sp ic io n t o s up po rt t he de fen da nt ’s det en ti on . Id. at11 09 -1 0. B. Fac ts in J ul ia n’s Cas e Here, u nd er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , we con cl ud e th atpro babl e cau se ex is te d fo r th e se iz ur e o f $2 1,0 15 in cas h fr om th e carJu li anwas d riv in g. Alt ho ug h a ll sev enfact or s i de nt ifi edby the di st ric t co urt, t ak ento ge th er, s up po rt a 11 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 11 of 14fin di ng of p ro babl e cau se , th e m os t p ro ba ti ve of t he se fact or s ar e th e co nd it io n o f

th e fu nd s an d t he ir s ub st an ti al va lu e. At the ti m e o f th e tr affi c st op , Ju li anwas i n po ss es si on of asi gn ifi can t am ou ntof c as h, t he va stm ajor ity of wh ic h h adbe en rubb er-b an de d i nt o 2 0 s ep arat e b un dl es of $ 1,0 00 each an d c on ceal edin si de of a cardbo ardbo x, an d “ [a] com m on sen se real it y

of e ve ry da y

li fe i s t ha t l eg it im at e bu si ne ss es do no t t ran sp ort l arg e qua nt it ie s o f cas h rubb er-b an de d i nt o b un dl es an d s tu ffedin to pa ck ag es .” $2 42 ,48 4.0 0, 3 89 F.3dat 1 16 1. J ul ia n h adno pape rwo rk , ban k re cei pt s, o r an y do cu m en ta ti on what so ev er co nc ern in g t he so ur ce of th e fu nd s. Alt ho ug h J ul ia n p ro vi de d a n e xp la na ti on forth e cas h’s o rig in , th e factth athi s ex pl an at io n c ou ldsupp ort an alt ern at iv e h y po th es is do es no t p rev en t th e la ckof d oc um en ta ti on fro m be in g p ro ba ti ve on th e is su e o f pr ob ab le cau se . See i d. Inad di ti on , un li ke in Bo y ce, the vi de o o f th e tr affi c st op in th e p res en t ca se di d n otbe li e Wool ard ’s tes ti m on y . W oo la rdhi m se lf t es ti fie d t ha t al th ou gh Ju li an was cal m an d c oo pe rat iv e, he ex hi bi te d s om e si gn s o f ne rv ou sn es s, i nc lu di ng lo ok in g d own an d a way

whi le sp eak in g, h ol di ng an d fo ld in g h is arm s ac ro ss hi s ch es t, an d wat ch in g h is car o nl y m in im al ly dur in g Woo la rd ’s sea rch . W oo la rd te st ifi edth athe ha d c on du ct edbe twee n t wo an d t hr ee t ho us an d t raff ic st op s du rin g h is care er, an d the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly gav e so m e wei gh t t o Woo la rd ’s 12 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 12 of 14in fere nc es reg ard in g J ul ia n’s b eh av io r. See $ 24 2,4 84 .00 , 38 9 F .3dat 1 16 2.

The ot he r fac ts fou ndby the di st ric t co urt, tho ug h n otas p ro ba ti ve as t he am ou ntof c as h, the co nd it io n o f th e cas h, an d J ul ia n’s b eh av io r, supp ort t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g o f pr ob ab le cau se . Ju li anwas trav el in g d own a kn own drug co rri do r in a ren ta l car fo r whi ch he was n ei th er the ren te r no r th e au th or iz ed dr iv er, an d h e ad m it te d t o apri ordru g- rel at edarre st . See i d. at11 67 ; cf . $1 21 ,10 0.0 0 i n U.S. Cu rren cy , 99 9 F .2dat 1 50 7- 08 (no ti ng th atth e in di vi du al fro m who m th e d efen da ntcu rren cy

was s ei zedha d ahi st ory of n arco ti cs arre st s an d c on vi ct io ns , bu t fo cu si ng on hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r co ntro ll edsubs ta nc e of fen se s) . Fin al ly, Ju li anco ul d n otpro vi de W oo la rdwith the ad dr es s o f hi s de st in at io n i n B runs wick , andwhi le th is fai lu re o n J ul ia n’s p artis di st in gu is habl e fro m th e su sp ic io us tra ve l p la ns at i ss ue in $2 42 ,48 4.0 0 a nd$1 21 ,10 0.0 0 i n U.S. Cu rren cy , th e d is tri ctco urt n ev ert he le ss was p erm it te d, u nd er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , to tak e th is fact orin to co ns id erat io n i n m ak in g i ts pro babl e cau se de te rm in at io n. Se e $ 24 2,4 84 .00 , 38 9 F .3dat 1 16 0. 4 Acco rd in gl y , inli gh t o f th e fo reg oi ng , andaft er o urcare fu l re vi ew of th e We also note that, while Jul ian contende d duringthe traf fic stop that the ca sh belong ed 4 to him, the fact that no pe rson ca me forw ard to c laim the funds in the administrative for feiture proce eding s is another fa ctor, one not considere d by the district court, that fur ther supports a findingof proba

ble ca use to believe that the ca sh was drug proce eds or wa s otherwise c onnecte d to drugactivity . See United States v. $242,484.00, 389 F .3d 1149, 1167-68 (11th Cir. 2004) (e n banc) . 13

Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 13 of 14reco rdan d b rie fs in th is cas e, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Ju li an ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s t he $2 1,0 15 cas h e vi de nc e se iz edfro m th e carJu li anwas dr iv in g. 5 AFFIRMED.

We rec ognize that the gove rnment alter natively argues that eve n if Woolard err oneously 5 seized the ca sh itself, he still would have bee n able to testify as to: (1) the c ircumstance s surroundingthe traf

fic stop, includingthe fa ctors that supported the district court’s proba ble cause finding ; (2) his discover y of the box; (3) details conce rningthe nature of its contents, which he le arne d duringthe cour se of the la wful sea rch prior to the seizure; and (4) J ulian’s admission to him that the box contained about $20,000, eve n if testimony reg ardingthe exact sum of money

would have be en excluded. B ased on this ar gument, the g overnme nt rea sons that any seizure er

ror wa s harmless. We nee d not rea ch the issue of harmless e rror , howeve r, bec ause there was no e rror

in the prese nt case . 14 Case: 12-12388 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 14 of 14