Opinion ID: 685598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forfeiture Under Sec. 881(a)(4)

Text: 34 Section 881(a)(4) provides that conveyances, including automobiles, used to facilitate drug trafficking are subject to forfeiture. 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 881(a)(4) (West Supp.1994). 6 As with all the forfeiture provisions of Sec. 881, Sec. 881(a)(4) places upon the government the initial burden to show probable cause for forfeiture. Probable cause exists if facts show reasonable grounds to believe that the property was used to facilitate a drug transaction. 6109 Grubb Road, 886 F.2d at 621. Once the government shows probable cause, the burden shifts to the claimant to show that he or she has a defense to the forfeiture. The most common defense, and the only one pertinent here, is the innocent owner defense provided in Sec. 881(a)(4)(C), which states that 35 no conveyance shall be forfeited under [Sec. 881(a)(4) ] to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge, consent, or willful blindness of the owner. 36 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 881(a)(4)(C) (West Supp.1994). 7 To make out the defense, the claimant must show (1) that he or she is an owner and (2) that he or she did not know, or was not willfully blind, or did not consent, to the improper use of the property. The second component of this defense can be somewhat difficult to establish because it forces the claimant to prove a negative. 37 There is no serious dispute that the government established probable cause that the Rolls Royce had been used to facilitate a drug transaction. FBI Agent Randal Wolverton testified that Leonetti told him that the car was used to bring Scarfo to the meeting with DiSalvo, and that it was used to bring Ianarella, who was carrying the street taxes, to Scarfo. Although Agent Wolverton's testimony was merely hearsay, probable cause for forfeiture may be established by hearsay evidence, see 6109 Grubb Road, 886 F.2d at 621, and it was adequate to show probable cause here. 38 As we have mentioned, the main bone of contention is whether Goodman showed that he was an innocent owner under Sec. 881(a)(4)(C). 8 We first consider whether the district court properly concluded that Goodman failed to show that he was not willfully blind to the fact that the Rolls Royce was used to facilitate a drug transaction. We then consider whether Goodman should be entitled to show on remand that, notwithstanding his willful blindness (if any), he is entitled to innocent owner status because he did not consent to the drug related uses of the vehicle.