Opinion ID: 794457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probable Cause for Seizure of all 4,432 Mastercases

Text: 40 We next conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances confronting the Customs Service, probable cause supported the government's seizure of all 4,432 mastercases of cigarettes on April 6, 2001. As we held in United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft : 41 The standard for probable cause in forfeiture proceedings resembles that required to support a search warrant. The determination of probable cause is based upon a totality of the circumstances test, and the government's evidence must be more than that which gives rise to a mere suspicion, although it need not rise to the level of prima facie proof. 42 91 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). 6 Thus, probable cause to seize property does not require absolute certainty, but only a fair probability that the property is contraband. See United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); United States v. Alaimalo, 313 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2002). Because judicial constructs like probable cause and reasonable suspicion are fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed, Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), we give reasonable deference to the inferences and judgments of experienced agents in the field, see id. at 700, 116 S.Ct. 1657; United States v. $129,727.00 U.S. Currency, 129 F.3d 486, 489 (9th Cir. 1997). 43 The Customs Service agents encountered the following combination of circumstances when they inspected the Carson FTZ. The FTZ operator initially indicated that there were no cigarettes on-site, but an FTZ employee queried the next day led Customs officers to Intrigue's cigarette storage space. The FTZ operator could not immediately produce records for Intrigue's cigarettes, records the zone operator generally maintains and must have readily available for Customs review. 19 C.F.R. § 146.4(d). The FTZ employees did not have a key to the storage area, and an Intrigue employee showed up with a key only when Customs was preparing to break the lock. Intrigue's storage cage was covered with a black tarp and the pallets inside were wrapped in opaque black plastic, both elements that Senior Customs Inspector Rudolfo Villacana testified he had not encountered before. And, when an Intrigue employee showed up, he was not initially able to produce any documentation that duties had been paid on the cigarettes. The next day, Customs inspectors (accompanied by a government chemist) performed field tests on sample packs of Intrigue's cigarettes, which indicated that the cigarettes were likely counterfeit, possibly counterfeit, or at least appeared to be counterfeit. Inspector Villacana declared that this combination of factors caused him to be very suspicious that the mastercases were entered illegally. Although Intrigue now offers explanations for each of these circumstances, at the time, an objectively reasonable Customs officer could properly conclude that probable cause existed for seizure. See Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657. 44 Intrigue's contention that the field test results were not sufficiently certain to support a finding of probable cause lacks merit. The Supreme Court has upheld probable cause determinations that are based on ambiguous or inconclusive field tests, even in the absence of other evidence supporting a finding of probable cause. For example, in Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court upheld the search of a car based on a dog-sniff detection of narcotics, 543 U.S. 405, 410, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005), even though evidence in the record indicated that Illinois drug dogs return false positives anywhere from 12.5% to 60% of the time, id. at 412, 125 S.Ct. 834 (Souter, J., dissenting). Here, moreover, the likely counterfeit/possibly counterfeit field test results did not stand alone. They were one of a combination of circumstances giving rise to probable cause for the seizure. 45 Once Customs officers had probable cause to believe the merchandise was counterfeit, it was within their discretion to seize all of the cigarettes. Property may be seized, if available, by any Customs officer who has reasonable cause to believe that any law or regulation enforced by the Customs Service has been violated, by reason of which the property has become subject to seizure or forfeiture. 19 C.F.R. § 162.21(a). Similarly, 19 C.F.R. § 162.11 allows Customs officers lawfully on any premises and [ ] able to identify merchandise which has been imported contrary to law[to] seize such merchandise without a warrant. We therefore hold that the seizure was based on probable cause and statutorily authorized. 7