Motion to Suppress in a Civil Forfeiture Case
When your money or property is seized without a warrant, one of the most important defenses in the case requires filing a motion to suppress illegally obtain evidence after an unlawful stop, prolonged detention, a warrantless search, or the seizure of evidence.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
The Fourth Amendment applies to the seizure and subsequent civil forfeiture of property following a warrantless stop and search. For example, in One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Commonwealth of Penn., 380 U.S. 693 (1965), the court held that the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings.
Additionally, the Fourth Amendment’s requirements appear in the statutory framework of CAFRA. In fact, CAFRA specifically requires that seizures be made pursuant to a warrant or be based upon probable cause and made pursuant to a lawful search or arrest. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2)(B).
The forfeiture action may also be based on property seized by a state or local law enforcement agency and transferred to a federal agency, although those searches and seizures must also be lawfully conducted in compliance with the Fourth Amendment. See 18 U.S.C. § 981 (b)(2)(C). If your case involves a warrantless stop of you or your vehicle, prolonged detention by law enforcement officers, the warrantless search of your personal or property, or the warrantless seizure of the property subject to forfeiture, then contact us. Forfeiture attorney Sebastian Rucci understands the proceeding for filing a motion to suppress in a civil asset forfeiture.
Filing a Motion to Suppress in a Civil Asset Forfeiture Action
The claimant can move to suppress evidence gathered in a civil asset forfeiture case “much like a defendant in a criminal case who brings a motion to suppress.” See United States v. $200,255.00 in U.S. Currency, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40049, 2006 WL 1687774, *6 (M.D. Ga. June 16, 2006), the Court recognized the importance of filing a motion to suppress.
As with any challenge under the Fourth Amendment, the Court requires inquiry into whether the individual initiating such challenge has standing to do so. For example, in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978), the United Supreme Court stated that a defendant must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the place being searched to bring a Fourth Amendment challenge.
One common scenario involves the warrantless seizure of property that begins with a traffic stop of a suspect’s vehicle. In those cases, the court might evaluate the validity of the initial traffic stop, whether the driver granted valid consent to search the vehicle, and whether the officers exceeded the scope of the consent granted in conducting any subsequent search.
Another common scenario involves a law enforcement officer stopping a traveler to search for their luggage at an airport or train station. In those cases, the court might consider the legality of the initial detention from the inception, whether the detention was unreasonably prolonged, whether the traveler granted free and voluntary consent for the search, and the validity of any subsequent search of the traveler or their luggage.
Another issue relates to what remedy the Court should apply when deciding whether to suppress evidence, what evidence to suppress, and the impact of evidence being suppressed on the underlying forfeiture action.
However, “the mere fact that property was illegally seized does not immunize that property from forfeiture.” United States v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 708 F.2d 444, 450 (9th Cir. 1983). See also Rule G(8)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims (“Suppression does not affect forfeiture of the property based on independently derived evidence”). United States v. $145,850 United States Currency, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77686, *7
In United States v. One 1974 Learjet 24D, 191 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 1999), the court dated that seizure and forfeiture each implicate different evaluations of probable cause and noted that a lack of probable cause to seize the plane “would not, by itself, have ended the forfeiture proceedings.” In United States v. 30,000, 30 Fed. Appx. 473, 480 (6th Cir. 2002) (unpublished), the court found that “the absence of probable cause for a seizure may simply result in suppression of the evidence in a forfeiture proceeding. However, the failure to establish requisite probable cause for forfeiture precludes forfeiture.”
Warrantless Seizures in CAFRA Forfeitures under Section 981(b)
Section 981(b) specifically provides that: “Seizures pursuant to this section shall be made pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as provided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, except that a seizure may be made without a warrant if– (A) a complaint for forfeiture in rem has been filed in the United States district court and the court issued an arrest warrant in rem pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims; (B) there is probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture and — (i) the seizure is made pursuant to a lawful arrest or search, or (ii) another exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement would apply; or (C) the property was lawfully seized by a State or local law enforcement agency and transferred to a federal agency.” 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2).
Civil asset forfeiture is state-sanctioned robbery and is the great injustice of our time.
Attorney Sebastian Rucci Focuses His Law Practice on Seizures and Asset Forfeitures
Forfeiture attorney Sebastian Rucci has 27 years of legal experience and focuses his practice on seizures and asset forfeitures.
Forfeiture attorney Sebastian Rucci will challenge federal asset forfeiture cases throughout the United States. He can file a verified claim for the seized assets, an answer challenging the allegations in the verified forfeiture complaint, seek an adversarial preliminary hearing if one was denied, and challenge the seizure by filing a motion to suppress and dismiss on multiple procedural grounds demanding the immediate return of the seized assets.
Forfeiture attorney Sebastian Rucci can show that the seized assets are not the proceeds of criminal activity and that the agency did not have probable cause to seize the funds or other assets. Even if a showing of probable cause has been made, he can file to rebut the probable cause by demonstrating that the forfeiture statute was not violated, that the agency failed to trace the funds, or showing an affirmative defense that entitles the immediate return of the seized assets.
Forfeiture attorney Sebastian Rucci is available as co-counsel, working with other counsel, where he focuses on challenging the asset forfeiture and seizure aspect of the case throughout the United States. Forfeiture attorney Sebastian Rucci often takes civil asset forfeiture cases on a contingency fee basis, which means that you pay nothing until the money or other asset is returned. Let experienced forfeiture attorney Sebastian Rucci put his experience with federal seizures and forfeiture actions to work for you, call attorney Sebastian Rucci at 330-720-0398.
