Opinion ID: 842413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: evidence supporting forfeiture

Text: Turning now to the circuit court's forfeiture hearing, we note that the circuit court correctly excluded evidence of the illegally seized backpack and its contents. Our next inquiry is whether there was a preponderance of untainted evidence to support the forfeiture. First, with respect to the $180,975 in cash found in the claimant's rental car, while the cash itself was excluded from evidence, the trial court could properly consider the implications of the presence of such a large amount of cash in the vehicle. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that carrying a large sum of cash is strong evidence of some relationship with illegal drugs. [30] Here, as noted in the circuit court's findings, the ruling of drug forfeiture was based in part on the presence of the $180,975 in currency: Well, what do we have here? We have a very large amount of money. It is not illegal to have it. It is unheard [sic] of, but it is mighty unusual to have One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000) in cash being transported in this vehicle. The circuit court further noted: It is also a little unusual and I guess it would create in one's mind a suspicion, which isn't sufficient, but it is a suspicion when the person transporting it [cash] and driving the vehicle has no apparent means to produce that kind of income or have that kind of money. And Exhibit 3 tells us that her [claimant's] income peaked I think at one year at Fourteen Thousand (14,000) and usually it is Four to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) a year. So there is no good explanation why she would have it. The circuit court's suspicion about the claimant's ability to produce such a large amount of income, given the evidence of claimant's negligible taxable earnings, is also a factor that federal courts have used in concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support a drug forfeiture. For example, in United States v. $174,206 in United States Currency, 320 F.3d 658, 662 (C.A.6, 2003), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that evidence of the claimants' lack of legitimate income, by itself, was sufficient evidence to support the forfeiture of cash: The United States has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the property [$174,206 in cash] is traceable to the drug offenses and is thus subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The evidence before the district court showed that the Claimants' legitimate income was insufficient to explain the large amount of currency found in their possession. State tax records showed that Richard had filed no income tax returns from 1994 through 1999, and that Love had filed no income tax returns from 1994 through 1997. Love's 1998 and 1999 returns showed income of $ 15,147.00 and $15,995.00, respectively. In sum, then, the United States showed that the Claimants had a total of $31,142 in legitimate income between 1994 and 1999. The Claimants' safe deposit boxes contained $174,206.00. This evidence of legitimate income that is insufficient to explain the large amount of property seized, unrebutted by any evidence pointing to any other source of legitimate income or any evidence indicating innocent ownership, satisfies the burden imposed by the statute. [31] The circuit court's ruling of forfeiture was also based on the testimony of the expert on illegal drug trafficking: And what we have discovered from hearing the testimony of the expert is that when in patrolling the interstate, and I-94 particularly, that I-94 is a corridor for transporting drug monies westbound and drugs eastbound.    And on the number of stops with large amounts of money with very little exception, large amounts of money without drugs headed westbound and large amounts of drugs without money is headed eastbound. So, what this tells us is that the probability that this is a westbound transportation of drug money. Further, that more often than not rental cars are used for this purpose, and that there are frequent rental of vehicles from Detroit by the petitioner [claimant] for us. And that makes it more likely that she was transporting drug money. Federal courts have held that evidence seized in a known drug corridor is probative in drug forfeiture cases. For example, in United States v. $87,375 in United States Currency, 727 F.Supp. 155, 161 (D.N.J., 1989), the district court held: The fact that a large amount of money was being transported southward from New York through a well known drug corridor by a Colombian national who resides in Miami further supports the Government's showing of probable cause. [32] The reputation of an area for criminal activity may be relied on to support an inference of criminal conduct. See United States v. Rickus, 737 F.2d 360, 365 (3d Cir.1984). The area where Mr. Camacho was stopped by Trooper Tomasello, along Route 40 in Salem County, New Jersey, carries such a volume of drug traffic that it is commonly known as Cocaine Alley. See United States v. $33,500, Civil Action No. 86-3348(MHC), 1988 WL 169272 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 1988); United States v. $32,310, Civil Action No. 85-4004(MHC), 1988 WL 169271 (D.N.J., June 23, 1988). Colombia is a known major source of drugs which eventually get trafficked throughout the United States, and Miami is a known center for drug trafficking and money laundering. United States v. $364,960, 661 F.2d at 323-24; United States v. $5,644,540, 799 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir.1986). We are entitled to take such common experience considerations into account. United States v. $319,820, 620 F.Supp. [1474, 1477 (N.D.Ga., 1985)]. A claimant's explanation for the presence of large amounts of cash is also evaluated in drug forfeiture cases. Federal courts have held that a claimant's false statement is probative of drug activity. [I]nconsistencies and contradictions are relevant in determining whether the government has met its burden in justifying forfeiture. [33] For example, in United States v. Funds in the Amount of $30,670, [34] the claimant gave inconsistent testimony about the source of the $30,670 in cash contained in the his gym bag seized by drug enforcement agents. In finding under the totality of circumstances that there was a preponderance of evidence supporting forfeiture, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered the inconsistency and unreliability of the claimant's testimony: Calhoun's [claimant's] explanations regarding his travel to Phoenix are suspect. On the day his cash was seized, Calhoun was traveling to Phoenix, a recognized source city for illegal narcotics. See, e.g., [ United States v. ] $22,474 [in United States Currency], 246 F.3d [1212] at 1216 [(2001)] (Phoenix[ ][is] a known source city for drugs.); cf. United States v. Currency, U.S. $42,500.00, 283 F.3d 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2002) (giving weight to fact that claimant was traveling from New York to San Diego, well known source cities for drugs); United States v. $141,770.00 in U.S. Currency, 157 F.3d 600, 604 (8th Cir.1998) (giving weight to fact that claimant was traveling from California, a drug source state). He had made frequent trips to Phoenixseven trips within two months, not three as he claimed. Calhoun alleged that he stayed at the same hotel each trip (at 55th and the expressway) but could not recall the hotel's name; subpoenaed travel records indicate that Calhoun did not stay at any hotel at 55th and the expressway. Yet he stayed in Phoenix at least 27 nights during the two months he had been traveling there (making his forgetfulness all the less credible). All of these inconsistencies are relevant in weighing whether the government has established its burden justifying forfeiture. See [ United States v. ] $242,484 [in United States Currency], 389 F.3d [1149,] 1164 [(C.A.11, 2004)] (finding it proper to consider claimant's inconsistent statements and changing stories in considering whether the government's burden is met); $22,474, 246 F.3d at 1217 ([Claimant's] inconsistent statements about the money and his reasons for being in Phoenix tended to support an inference that the money was drug related.); United States v. $67,220.00 in U.S. Currency, 957 F.2d 280, 286 (6th Cir.1992) (Misstatements are probative of possible criminal activity.) [ United States v. Funds, supra at 467.] As was the case in United States v. Funds, claimant here gave unreliable and inconsistent testimony about why she had $180,975 in cash in the trunk of her rental car. [35] In addition, claimant's testimony that she intended to use the money to buy a house in Indianapolis was not credible. [36] And while the dissent has suggested that if the cash subject to forfeiture is removed from consideration, claimant's behavior appears ordinary and innocent, post at 512, we remind the dissent that the circuit court had the benefit of judging the credibility of the claimant's testimony on the stand juxtaposed with the testimony of the illegal drug trafficking expert. Given claimant's inability to provide a credible explanation for how she came to have such a large amount of cash in a rental car, while traveling along a known drug trafficking corridor, and given her unexplained and repeated history of using rental cars, as well as the absence of evidence supporting her explanation for the intended use of such a large amount of cash, the circuit court could properly find that her behavior was not ordinary and innocent. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that ultimately the circuit court found claimant's testimony unpersuasive: Her [claimant's] testimony [is] that she was transporting the money to buy a house and in the Indianapolis area, that there is no buy/sell agreement. There is no documentation. There is no substantiation of that. Her testimony about the money and how it happened to get into the car was changing and ambiguous, and very honestly not very credible. So when all gets said and done, I don't give much credibility to her testimony given the contradictions involved. In deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to support a ruling of drug forfeiture, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that we look to the totality of circumstances and do not try to pick them off, one by one, by conjuring up some alternative hypothesis of innocence to explain each circumstance in isolation. [37]