Opinion
Civil Action No. 20-111
07-14-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. $38,411.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant.
District Judge Robert J. Colville
ECF No. 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff United States of America ("United States" or "Plaintiff') has filed a Motion for Judgment and Final Order of Forfeiture. ECF No. 8. Because no claim has been filed against Defendant $38,411.00 in United States Currency ("Defendant Currency") and Plaintiff is entitled to the entry of judgment in its favor, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Judgment and Final Order of Forfeiture be granted.
II. REPORT
A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The United States instituted this in rem civil forfeiture action on January 23, 2020, by filing a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture averring that $38,411.00 in the Defendant Currency is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The facts that follow are derived from the uncontested Complaint, ECF No. 1, and form the basis of Plaintiff's request for relief.
On June 22, 2019 at approximately 3:18 p.m., Allegheny County Police initiated a traffic stop on the Pittsburgh International Airport exit road of an illegally parked vehicle bearing a North Carolina license plate. ECF No. 1 ¶ 3. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer observed that the driver was asleep. The officer awakened the driver and identified him as Charles Triplin ("Triplin"). The officer determined that Triplin's vehicle had been rented from Raleigh, North Carolina approximately two months earlier. The Verified Complaint alleges that based on training and experience, the officer knew that drug traffickers often use rental vehicles rather than their personal vehicles to transport narcotics and narcotics proceeds to avoid detection. Id. ¶¶ 4-5.
Triplin initially claimed that he had driven from New Jersey and was waiting for his cousin's flight to arrive for pickup. The officer detected a marijuana odor emanating from the vehicle. When asked about the odor, Triplin admitted that he had smoked marijuana earlier and that he had marijuana in his pocket. The officer then removed marijuana from Triplin's pants pocket. The officer also observed marijuana residue and drug paraphernalia in the console area. Officers obtained Triplin's written consent to search the vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 6-9.
Upon searching Triplin's vehicle, officers located a black backpack containing a large amount of U.S. currency banded together. The backpack also contained a pair of shoes that had U.S. currency stuffed inside each shoe and two white envelopes, each containing a large amount of U.S. currency. Officers also found a second smaller black bag containing a large amount of U.S. currency banded together. The amount of currency found was later determined to total $38,411.00. Id. ¶ 10.
After observing narcotics and the large amount of U.S. currency, Allegheny County Police requested assistance from a Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") Task Force Officer, who arrived shortly thereafter. Triplin was then interviewed by the Task Force Officer. During the interview, Triplin provided numerous conflicting statements regarding his travel and the source of the Defendant Currency. Triplin stated that he lived in North Carolina and had never been to Pittsburgh before. However, when officers later drove Triplin to the Allegheny County Jail, he stated that he had previously visited Pittsburgh. Triplin also stated that he was at the airport to pick up his cousin "Damion" and planned to drive with him to Cameron County (3 hours from Pittsburgh) and then to Allentown (5 hours from Pittsburgh). Triplin admitted that he was uncertain of Damion's last name, and at another point in the interview referred to his cousin by two other names, "Daquan" and "Jamon." Triplin did not know what airline Damion was flying on. Triplin claimed he was supposed to pick up Damion between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. but did not know the arrival time of the flight. Officers observed that the time of the stop, 3:18 p.m., was over four hours past that timeframe. Additionally, officers confirmed that no flights had arrived from North Carolina between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. Id. ¶¶ 11-15.
Despite initially claiming that he had come to Pittsburgh from New Jersey, Triplin later stated that he had left North Carolina on June 20 for Virginia, where he dropped off his children on June 21, and then came to Pittsburgh on June 22. Triplin stated he was going to attend a memorial service in Johnstown later that day for his sister who had recently passed away. These statements contradicted Triplin's prior claim that he was driving to Cameron County and Allentown. When asked if he had tried to contact his cousin since arriving at the airport, Triplin said his phone went dead. However, officers found five phones in Triplin's vehicle, all of which had a good charge. Based on training and experience, the DEA Task Force Officer was aware that narcotics traffickers commonly possess and use multiple cellular phones. Id. ¶¶ 16-17.
Triplin claimed that he was picking up money from family members for his sister's memorial service and that the remainder was going to his nephews. A subsequent search of a law enforcement database did not indicate that the individual Triplin identified as his sister was deceased. Officers were also unable to locate an obituary in either Pennsylvania or New Jersey. Additionally, Triplin could not identify the location in Johnstown where the memorial service for his sister was being held. Triplin stated that he was attending an expensive catered family dinner after the memorial service but did not know the name or location of the restaurant or the time of the dinner. Id. ¶¶ 18-19.
Triplin stated that he had no more than $30,000 in the vehicle and identified people who had allegedly given him the currency. One of the people Triplin identified was his cousin "Monica." Triplin then called Monica on his phone and handed the phone to the Task Force Officer to speak with her. When the Officer asked Monica why Triplin was at the Pittsburgh airport, Monica said he had flown—not driven—to Pittsburgh. When the officer informed Monica that Triplin had actually driven to Pittsburgh, she altered her explanation and claimed he was at the airport to pick up his friend "Dana." When Monica was asked if she had given any money to Triplin, she said she gave him $2,000 because Triplin had given her money for property and she was paying him back. Monica stated that she was not aware of a memorial service being held on behalf of Triplin's sister. Id. ¶¶ 20-22.
Triplin attempted to call Damion, the cousin he was allegedly picking up at the airport; however, the number did not go through and Triplin could not explain why he did not have an active number for his cousin. Id. ¶ 23. Officers found a second larger bag of marijuana inside the vehicle and arrested Triplin. Id. ¶ 24.
Based on the above circumstances, agents seized the Defendant Currency pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The Defendant Currency consisted of one hundred twenty-four $100 bills, one hundred sixty $50 bills, eight hundred ninety-seven $20 bills, six $10 bills, two $5 bills, and one $1 bill. Later that day, the DEA conducted a scan of the Defendant Currency using a certified, trained narcotics detection canine, which alerted to the odor of a controlled substance on the Defendant Currency. Additionally, a criminal history search of Triplin revealed a prior conviction for cocaine trafficking. Id. ¶¶ 25-26, 28.
After the seizure, the DEA instituted administrative forfeiture proceedings against the Defendant Currency. Triplin filed a claim to the Defendant Currency as part of the administrative forfeiture proceedings. As a result, the United States commenced this civil forfeiture action against the Defendant Currency. Id. ¶ 29.
Shortly after the filing of the Verified Complaint, the United States served a copy of the Complaint for Forfeiture and Warrant of Arrest In Rem on Triplin at two known addresses, having been identified as the only person known by the United States who may have an interest in the Defendant Currency. ECF No. 7. The mailing was returned as undeliverable at both addresses. Id. The United States gave public notice of this action to all persons by public advertisement on the federal government's forfeiture website (www.forfeiture.gov), and no claims, answers, pleading or appearances have been filed regarding the Defendant Currency. ECF No. 6. In light of the foregoing, the United States has filed the instant Motion for Judgment and Final Order of Forfeiture. ECF No. 7.
B. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND FORFEITURE PROCESS
Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for entry of default "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules." Upon request of the party entitled to default, Rule 55(b)(2) authorizes the Court to enter a default judgment for the amount claimed and costs.
The United States seeks the entry of default as well as statutory in rem forfeiture pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 881 against the property, not the owner of the property. Congress has set forth several types of property that are subject to civil forfeiture, including the proceeds of illegal drug transactions. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), the following are "subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them":
All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
Once property for forfeiture has been identified, Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions ("Supplemental Rules") provides the process that must be followed. Under Rule G, the government must file a verified complaint that states the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the property, and venue; describes the property with reasonable particularity; states the property's location when any seizure occurred and its location when the action is filed; identifies the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought; and provides sufficiently detailed fact to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial. See Supp. R. Certain Adm. & Mar. Cl & Asset Forfeiture Actions G(2).
If the property is not real property and is already in the government's possession, custody, or control, the Clerk must issue a warrant to arrest the property before it can be seized. Id. at § 3(b). Once the arrest warrant is issued, the government may arrest the property pursuant to the warrant. Id. at § 3(c). Finally, the government must publish notice of the forfeiture action, for any potential claimants that it is not aware of and must give direct notice to any potential claimants that it knows to exist. Id. at § 4. For potential claimants that the government does not know, the government must publish notice within a reasonable time after the Verified Complaint is filed, which may be satisfied by posting a notice on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least thirty consecutive days. Id. at § 4(a)(iv)(C). For potential claimants known to the government, the government must send notice of the action and a copy of the Verified Complaint "by means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant," including to the potential claimant directly or to his attorney. Id. at § 4(b)(iii).
Once a Verified Complaint has been filed, and notice served, a potential claimant must file a claim that conforms to Rule G(5)(a) of the Supplemental Rules and 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A). The claim must be filed in the court where the action is pending, identify the specific property, and the nature of the claimant's interest in the property, and be served on the government's attorney. Under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A), the claim must be filed no later than thirty days after the date of service of the government's Verified Complaint or no later than thirty days after the date of final publication of notice of the filing of the Verified Complaint.
C. DISCUSSION
The United States has met the requirements identified above and is entitled to the entry of default judgment and an order of forfeiture. The Verified Complaint was filed on January 23, 2020, and a warrant of arrest in rem was requested on January 23, 2020 and issued on January 24, 2020. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 4. Timely and appropriate notice was personally served on the known claimant and published on the government's forfeiture website for at least thirty days beginning January 28, 2020. ECF Nos. 6, 7.
The United States sufficiently identifies the statute under which this forfeiture action is brought and has set forth the facts pursuant to which forfeiture is indicated as proceeds from drug trafficking under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). In particular, the United States alleges that the Defendant Currency was bundled in a manner "indicative of how drug-money couriers transport illegal drug proceeds." ECF No. 1 ¶ 26. A positive canine alert for drug exposure, coupled with the various objectively fictional accounts of the source and purported use of the Defendant Currency lend credence to the Plaintiff's belief that the funds are proceeds traceable to drug-trafficking. Based upon these facts, the United States has met its burden to establish that the money is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
In addition, the United States has indicated the various measures implemented to notify possible claimants of this case, including personally serving Triplin at his known addresses, as well as publishing notice on the federal government's forfeiture website. Triplin was personally aware of a forfeiture proceeding, having filed a claim to the Defendant Currency in the administrative hearing. However, he has not filed a claim in this judicial proceeding.
The United States has possession of the property, no claims have been asserted against the property, and the property is in default. Accordingly, the United States is entitled to default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) and to a final order of forfeiture.
D. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Judgment and Final Order of Forfeiture, ECF No. 8, be granted.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file a written response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Maureen P . Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: July 14, 2020 cc: The Honorable Robert J. Colville
United States District Judge
All counsel of record by Notice of Electronic Filing