UNITED STATES

v.

$126,880 IN U.S. CURRENCY

This matter is before the Court on the Second Renewed Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted, filed by Claimants Quenita Mara Harris and Lorenzo Brown. (Doc. 39). Plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”) filed a response in opposition to the motion. (Docs. 40; 31). Upon review of the motion, response, court file, and record, the Court finds as follows:¹

a known source city for cocaine and a major money laundering hub for drug proceeds. A deputy sheriff pulled the car over because the license tag had expired. Smelling marijuana, the deputy asked the passengers to step out and he searched the car. He found $106,880 in cash in a paper Gucci bag on the passenger floorboard, along with a loaded firearm, a small amount of marijuana, and Brown’s identification and credit cards. The deputy found no documents indicating that the money had come from a bank or other legitimate source. Brown had additional marijuana in his sock and Ms. Harris also had a handgun in her purse. Brown at first told the deputy that the money was his, but then moments later claimed that it belonged to Harris. Brown said there was about $120,000 in the bag and it was going to be used to buy a boat in Miami. While the deputy was speaking with Brown, a second deputy found another $20,000 on the rear floorboard of the BMW. All currency was bundled using currency straps; the denominations included hundreds, fifties and twenties. Harris and Brown were interviewed separately. Harris said that she was the owner of the seized money, of which she claimed to have saved $55,000 - $60,000

Asset Forfeiture Actions, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that the complaint must, among other things, “state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.” Supp. R. G(2)(f). Supplemental Rule E(2)(a) provides that the complaint must “state the circumstances from which the claim arises with such particularity that the . . . claimant will be able, without moving for a more definite statement, to commence and investigation of the facts and to frame a responsive pleading.”

18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(D), on the other hand, provides that “[n]o complaint may be dismissed on the ground that the Government did not have adequate evidence at the time the complaint was filed to establish forfeitability of the property.” See also Supp. R. G(8)(b)(ii). 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(2) provides that the Government may use evidence gathered after the filing of the complaint to establish that the property is subject to forfeiture. Analysis The Government’s burden at trial will be to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the seized funds had a substantial connection to a transaction or transactions involving controlled substances. See (Doc. 1 at ¶ 7); 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1) and (c)(3); United States v. All Funds in the Account of Property Futures, Inc., No. 08-81244-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, 2010 WL 11447277, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2010). The parties agree, correctly, that the Government in meeting that burden may rely on the totality of the circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. $242,484.00, 389 F. 3d 1149, 1167 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Thus, each item of evidence is not to be “pick[ed] off one by one, by conjuring up some alternative hypothesis of innocence to explain each circumstance in isolation.” Id. Moreover, the Government need not “demonstrate that the seized currency was connected with any particular drug transaction; instead, the Government need only show that the money was ‘related to some illegal drug transaction.’” United States v. Currency $21,175.00 in U.S., 521 F. App’x 734, 739 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting $242,484.00, 389 F. 3d at 1160).

At the pleading stage, however, the complaint needs only to “state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.” To be sure, a bare bones assertion that the money is subject to forfeiture, without pleading a “whiff” of supporting evidence, would be insufficient. United States v. Two Parcels of Real Prop. Located in Russell County, Ala., 92 F. 3d 1123, 1127 (11th Cir. 1996). But here there is more. The presence of an unusually large amount of cash in Claimants’ car, in two separate locations on the floorboard, suggests illegal activity of some kind and weighs in favor of a reasonable belief that the funds were connected to illicit drugs. See $242,484.00,

389 F. 3d at 1161 (“As a matter of common knowledge and common sense,” unlike legitimate businesses, drug rings “commonly do use couriers to transport in cash their ill gotten gains, which can be huge.”). Harris also stated that at home she kept this money in boxes stored around the house. As the United States points out, “[l]egitimate businesses or individuals usually keep large sums of money in banks, not boxes.” (Doc. 31 at 13). Moreover, common sense also tells us that no one, not even the very wealthy, carries around over $100,000 in cash in a paper bag. Both claimants had guns with them in the car, “tools” often used by those involved in the drug trade. See United States v. Perez, 648 F. 2d 219, 224 (11th Cir.1981) (“[S]ubstantial dealers in narcotics keep firearms on their premises as tools of the trade almost to the same extent as they keep scales . . . glassine bags, cutting equipment, and other narcotic equipment.”) (quoting United States v. Wiener, 534 F. 2d 15, 18 (2d Cir. 1976)); United States v. Smith, 918 F. 2d 1501, 1509 (11th Cir.1990) (noting that firearms are “tools of the trade” for drug dealers). Claimants were headed toward Miami, a known center for illegal drugs and related money laundering. See $282,484, 389 F. 3d at 1163 (citing testimony and case law noting that Miami is a center for drug smuggling and money laundering). Claimants’ explanations as to the source and ownership of the money were vague and conflicting. Their purported plans for the money – to buy some kind of boat, from someone unknown, somewhere in Miami, to be moored someplace unknown – could be viewed as implausible. See $21,175.00, 521 F. App’x at 740 (holding that presence of large amount of currency and the fact that the owner

“failed to credibly explain why he withdrew money from his bank account and stashed it under his grandmother's bed weighs in favor of finding the currency was connected to illegal drug activity”); United States v. $15,740.00 in United States Funds, No. 5:07-cv-375 (HL), 2008 WL 2227511, at *1-2 (M.D. Ga. May 27, 2008) (holding that small amount of marijuana, presence of cash in oddly wrapped bundles, and fact that driver claimed to be going to Atlanta to buy a truck but could not say where in Atlanta she was going supported reasonable belief that the funds were subject to forfeiture). Claimants’ arguments for dismissal do not address the totality of the circumstances alleged by the Government. Instead, their attack on the sufficiency of the complaint seeks to “pick off” each discrete fact, take it in isolation, and argue that it does not show a connection to a drug transaction. See (Docs. 39 at 3-7; 32 at 1-8). As Claimants admit, that is not the correct approach.

It is true that in many asset forfeiture cases, additional facts pleaded or proved have connected the seized property more specifically to drug activity, such as a trained police dog alerting on the funds, drug paraphernalia being found nearby, or a prior connection of the owners to illegal drug activity. See, e.g., United States v. $121,100.00 in United States Currency, 999 F. 2d 1503, 1507-08 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. $22,900.00 in U.S. Currency, 8:14-CV-467-T-30MAP, 2014 WL 3809175, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug.¹, 2014). At trial, the Government may seek to adduce additional evidence, if it exists, in order to increase its changes of prevailing. But at the pleading stage the Government is not required to have adequate evidence to establish forfeitability. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(D). The facts set forth in the complaint are sufficiently detailed to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to prove its case at trial. Supp. R. G(2)(f). The complaint is also sufficient to allow the Claimants to frame their response and begin an investigation. Supp. Rule E(2)(a). It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. Claimants “Second Renewed Motion to Dismiss Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief Can be Granted” (Doc. 39) is DENIED. 2. Claimants are directed to file an answer on or before July 8, 2020. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 17t» day of June, 2020.

~ Lets

-TOMBARBER i (asstsi‘“‘i;té;™

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE