Guy had a million dollars cash in his car. When stopped by police he denied that the million dollars was his. Now that the money is going to be forfeited to the government, guy decides that the million dollars really is his. Government argues that his initial denial of ownership prevents him from even bringing a legal claim to get the money due to certain Constitutional restrictions on who may bring a claim in a court case. The Appeals Court has now decided that he can bring his claim, despite his initial denial of ownership of the money, but he probably won’t win because of his initial denial of ownership of the money. Maybe he will say he had amnesia that day. This Appeals Court decision at least gets his lawyer in the door of the courthouse and gives his counsel an opportunity to tell whatever b.s. story they have cooked up to get the million back.

That what you were looking for?

I am not saying that I can’t kick Eapen’s heinderparts when it comes to blogging legal cases in terms laypeople can understand. I do that almost every day! I was just saying that SHG’s particular criticism is a bit misplaced here.

“Don’t forget attitude, either. Street gangs don’t usually kill puppies just for fun.”

Uhhh… Yeah they do.

As far as the phrasing (i.e. “Article III case or controversy standing” vs “standing” or “Article III standing”), I’m not a lawyer and this article soared completely over my head until I read shg’s comment and realized the author was being a little pedantic. Not a big deal if you’re reading a legal blog, but it’s not what you’d expect to see at The Agitator.

This was on a motion to dismiss. Usually, a motion to dismiss is made at an early stage in the proceedings, where the court is required to assume that every allegation made by the plaintiff in his complaint is true. If so: The mere claim to ownership in the complaint would suffice to defeat the motion to dismiss. At a later stage in the proceedings (say, on a motion for summary judgment), it may well turn out that the plaintiff is unable to adequately support his allegation; the case would then be tossed for lack of standing. At most, this is merely a slap on the wrist to the district court for failing to follow the proper procedure when deciding a motion to dismiss.

I may not drive a geezermobile, but I am going to disagree with this criticism of the phrasing Eapen quotes. Lujan states:

“Though some of [standing doctrine's] elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, the core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”

In light of this, the phrase “Article III case-or-controversy standing” seems like a fair descriptor. I would have preferred the more-concise phrase “Article III standing,” but I am not going to throw down my bar card and call trump on that fine of a point.

… he had a million bucks in his rental car and he said somthing similar to “That’s not mine, officer – I don’t know how that got there”?

So is the actual case here to decide whether the police keep it?

Yes and No. The case reported above was on appeal from the claim case. It decided he had standing to bring the claim, ie: whether the courts recognize him as the party who can bring a claim for the money to court. The 9th CCA ruled that he can make the claim, ie: that his claim case can stay in court.

… he had a million bucks in his rental car and he said somthing similar to “That’s not mine, officer – I don’t know how that got there”?

So is the actual case here to decide whether the police keep it? And if they can’t, who does – the guy who said it wasn’t his money? Or will the money be held (presumably by the police) until someone comes forward to claim it?

The only one I wouldn’t match is the one where he consented to search his rental.

and the only difference between a police department and a street gang is major medical.

Gangs aren’t blown nearly as often by politicians.

What it proves is that cops are theives, and the only difference between a police department and a street gang is major medical.

And spiffy uniforms with funny hats.

Don’t forget attitude, either. Street gangs don’t usually kill puppies just for fun.

While the claimant’s comments will certainly be used as evidence that he isn’t the lawful owner of the property, to so disenfranchise someone at a mere traffic stop is unquestionably abusive.

I wonder if the court would hold police comments during a stop to the same standard?

The importance of this ruling is that the denial at the time of seizure (“It’s not mine; I’ve never seen that money before.”) no longer binds the claimant in a subsequent forfeiture proceeding. This is good, though it doesn’t make the claimant look either truthful or innocent, but that can’ be helped as he’s already denied ownership. At least it gets him into the game.

As for the factors mentioned, the burden to the government is probable cause, and it’s based on the totality of circumstances. It’s typical in a forfeiture proceeding to break down the circumstances into small bites to create the sense of a substantial number of factors that support probable cause. The claimant’s response would be that he was on a road trip, like millions of people innocently enjoy regularly every year, negating many of the circumstances.

The problem, obviously, is that millions of people on innocent road trips don’t have bulk currency in the car. The burden shifts to the claimant, after the government has proven probable cause, to prove that the currency was legitimately owned and possessed for lawful purposes. While the win on standing is a good decision, whether Simard can prevail on his claim is another matter. And, as Burgers suggests, Simard may well be exactly the sort of case where forfeiture is intended.

Federal in rem forfeiture is terrible law, but it remains importnat to describe it accurately and understand its components, as it is the law.

Perhaps. It is early in the litigation. The case could easily go back to an appellate court on another issue. And, it easy enough for policy makers to seize on such occurrences to craft draconian policy.

The opinion seemed notable to me because (1) the appellate did not rule otherwise on this question and (2) because of the danger that the appellate court would rule otherwise-especially if the appellate court agreed with the prosecution (and district court) and then recommended the opinion for publication. That danger seemed real (to me) given February’s published opinion US v. $133,420.00 in United States Currency, 10-16727 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2012).

IMO, judicial acceptance of the government’s position would predict a new dramatic escalation of civil forfeitures and coerced consents.

Hmmm, Simard said that he didn’t own the million dollars because if he said that he did own the million dollars then he would be sent to Syria like Mr. Arar was?

My prediction: this case may well end up hurting the asset forfeiture reform movement more than it helps it. I hope my prediction is wrong, but Simard seems guilty as sin based only on your blog post and the non-precedential 9th Circuit decision. Based on this limited information, Simard seems like the type of guy that lawmakers had in mind when they wrote and pitched the asset forfeiture law.

Officers often have snacks in the car with them, regardless of what regulations may or may not say.

Police often have a reference road map for navigation purposes, especially when new on the job.

Police often have a briefcase or messenger bag to hold paperwork, forms, etc. The most common places for it are the passenger side on the floor or in the passenger seat. It is usually black.

A modern police car is festooned with electronic devices.

Aside from currency fresh from the Treasury, ALL currency has traces of narcotics on it, sufficient for a drug sniffing dog to alert on it. I’d wager dollars to doughnuts that a police dog would alert on most officer’s wallets, with a neutral handler.