United States v. $61,450 in U.S. Currency

Background

The Government seized $61,450 in cash on March 6, 2023, and filed this civil forfeiture action. The seizure followed a search of a residence connected to John Sheldon Pickens, Jr. Law enforcement had found approximately thirteen pounds of cocaine in Pickens’s vehicle, a photograph on his phone showing what appeared to be two kilos of narcotics and a scale, and evidence at the residence that included cash, firearms, ammunition, and drug-related items.

Ashley Clark filed a claim to the entire amount. In a sworn statement, she said that she had saved money earned as tips while working on cruise ships and had kept it in cash. When officers searched the residence, Clark said the firearms did not belong to her and that she did not know about the packaged cash.

Clark’s Motion to Stay and Constitutional Arguments

Clark, who represented herself, moved to stay the forfeiture proceedings and sought the return of what she described as unlawfully seized property. The court primarily construed her filing as a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment.

The court denied that motion. It explained that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and generally cannot be asserted on behalf of another person. Clark challenged tracking warrants used on devices belonging to Pickens, but she did not argue or offer evidence that the devices were hers. The court therefore concluded that any challenge to the tracking of those devices belonged to Pickens, not Clark.

The court also addressed Clark’s apparent Fifth Amendment takings and Fourteenth Amendment due-process arguments. It concluded that Clark had not demonstrated a property interest in the currency because she failed to participate in discovery. It further held that the forfeiture statute, which existed when the currency was seized, limited any expectation that the property would be constitutionally compensable. The court also concluded that Clark received procedural due process through the judicial forfeiture proceeding, even though she had not meaningfully participated in it.

Discovery Sanction

The Government asked the court to dismiss Clark’s claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d). That rule permits sanctions when a party fails to appear for a properly noticed deposition or fails to provide required discovery responses. Available sanctions can include dismissing claims or entering a default judgment.

The court found that Clark violated an April 15 order requiring her to appear for a deposition within 30 days and provide complete supplemental discovery responses. She did not supplement her responses and did not appear at either of two scheduled depositions. The court therefore dismissed Clark’s claim as a discovery sanction.

Forfeiture on the Merits

The Government also sought summary judgment and a final order of forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). That statute provides for forfeiture of money furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for controlled substances and proceeds traceable to such exchanges.

The court held that the Government showed a substantial connection between the currency and drug activity based on the totality of the circumstances. It relied on Pickens’s short trips to Chicago; his flight from law enforcement while transporting approximately thirteen pounds of cocaine; the photograph of him with apparent narcotics and a scale; the lack of evidence that other adults lived at the residence; Clark’s denial of knowledge or ownership of the currency when it was found; the large amount of cash; the cash’s rubber-banded packaging; the firearms and scales found at the residence; Clark’s lack of employment during the six months before the seizure; and the fact that she had bank accounts but had not deposited the cash.

Disposition

The court ordered that Clark’s motion to stay the proceedings was DENIED. It ordered that the Government’s motion for a procedural default on Clark’s claim, default judgment, and a final order of forfeiture was GRANTED. The currency was forfeited to the United States under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), and the action was dismissed.