The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in favor of a “pile of cash,” and the people who claimed to own it, over the U.S. government in a civil asset forfeiture case.
The unusual case puts the U.S. government against “a pile of cash” — $17,900 was actually named as a defendant in the case — and the two women, Joyce Copeland and Angela Rodriguez, who claim to be its owners.
The dispute resolved by the appeals court on Tuesday stemmed from the government’s practice of civil forfeiture, whereby law enforcement can seize property and seek permanent forfeiture in a civil proceeding without ever charging the owner of the property with a criminal offense.
After an Amtrak passenger mistakenly grabbed a bag with $17,900 belonging to the appellants, the passenger turned the bag over to Amtrak police. After a police narcotics dog “alerted” the bag, the police spoke with Rodriguez but were “unconvinced” and decided to seize the cash to turn over to the Drug Enforcement Agency.
The government found it to be “implausible” that the money belonged to the two women without any connection to drug trafficking, and a district court agreed with that argument in the initial judgment.
The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed that judgment on Tuesday, ruling the women had met the necessary standard for claiming ownership of the money.
“At summary judgment, claimants alleging an ownership interest need only make an assertion of ownership and provide some evidence of ownership to establish standing,” Tatel wrote. “Because ‘[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge’ … we conclude that appellants met their burden.”
While the appeals court’s decision on Tuesday dealt a blow to the government’s cause, it did not hand a clear victory to the appellants looking to get the cash back. The D.C. Court of Appeals’ decision reversed the lower court ruling and remanded the case for additional proceedings in order to decide if the money should be returned.
“Our decision means only that the pair has a right to contest whether the money is subject to forfeiture,” Tatel wrote for the court.
Tatel explained they money itself has to be named as a defendant due to the nature of the case.
“This is a civil-forfeiture case, which is why the plaintiff is the United States of America and the defendant is a pile of cash. The government claims that the cash is subject to forfeiture because it is connected to the ‘exchange [of] a controlled substance,’ i.e., drug trafficking,” wrote Judge David Tatel in the court’s opinion.
“Appellants, themselves flesh and blood, have intervened in this action, offering sworn testimony that the money is theirs and wholly unrelated to drugs.”
