Opinion ID: 712236
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unit 10--Nexus with Illegal Activity

Text: 35 Ms. May first contends that Unit 10 is not forfeitable at all because it is a lot or tract 6 separate from Unit 9, where the only contraband at the business property was found. She argues further that the district court found Unit 10 forfeitable by using a subjective standard that impermissibly considered how the Mays used the property instead of how it was legally divided. 36 Property is forfeitable under § 881(a)(7) whenever there exists a sufficient nexus between the property and the illegal activity. $149,442.43 in United States Currency, 965 F.2d at 877; cf. United States v. Harris, 903 F.2d 770, 777 (10th Cir.1990) (analyzing an analogous forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2)). In this instance, whether or not the standard used by the district court was subjective, we consider Unit 10 to have a sufficient independent nexus to the illegal activity to support forfeiture. Once the wall between Unit 9 and Unit 10 had been removed, any contraband kept in Unit 9 depended for its continued concealment at least in part on the walls surrounding Unit 10. As the district court noted, [i]t is sufficient that the property serve to facilitate the illegal activity by concealing its presence. Order Regarding Cross Motions for Summary Judgment at 11 (citing United States v. Smith, 966 F.2d 1045, 1055 (6th Cir.1992)). The presence not only of fifty-five grams of cocaine, but also of a scale and cocaine grinder, suggests that the need for concealment at the business property was considerable.