United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, Albert Joseph Alexander, Claimant-Appellee

39 F.3d 1039 63 USLW 2351 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. CURRENCY, $30,060.00, Defendant. Albert Joseph Alexander, Claimant-Appellee. No. 92-55919. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 31, 1994. Decided Nov. 8, 1994. Lee S. Arian, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. Jerold L. Bloom, Sherman Oaks, CA, for claimant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: TANG, PREGERSON, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge TANG; Dissent by Judge NOONAN. TANG, Senior Circuit Judge: 1 The government appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Albert Joseph Alexander. The district court concluded the government did not establish probable cause that $30,060 seized from Alexander was connected to drugs as required to warrant forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881 (a)(6). The government argues the narcotics detection dog's positive alert to the presence of the scent of a controlled substance on Alexander's money, the packaging and the amount of the money, and Alexander's false accounts of the money's source and his own employment…

Opinion by Judge TANG; Dissent by Judge NOONAN.

The government appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Albert Joseph Alexander. The district court concluded the government did not establish probable cause that $30,060 seized from Alexander was connected to drugs as required to warrant forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6). The government argues the narcotics detection dog’s positive alert to the presence of the scent of a controlled substance on Alexander’s money, the packaging and the amount of the money, and Alexander’s false accounts of the money’s source and his own employment record is sufficient evidence to establish the requisite probable cause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department stopped Alexander for running a stop sign. When the deputies approached Alexander’s Ford Tempo, they saw on the front passenger seat a plastic bag filled with money. The money was arranged in $1,000 stacks bound by rubber bands; the bills included denominations of $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100. It is unclear whether the deputies removed the plastic bag from the seat. While still…

dissenting:

I would not depend on the dog but I would consider the facts as they converge in the context of Los Angeles. Albert Joseph Alexander is a young man 30 years old at the time he was stopped on an April evening in 1990 with $30,060 in cash on the front seat of his car. He at once told the police about where he had obtained the money, saying he had earned it as a partner of Dan Tucker at Tucker’s Cafe. He also told the police about his current employment, saying that he worked at Jim Dandy’s Liquor. As it turned out, he had not earned the money by working at Jim Dandy’s. He had not been a partner of Tucker but was dating his daughter. Albert Joseph Alexander had not worked for five years. His sole legal source of support was his mother, an employee of the post office.

The money was in a plastic bag. The bills included denominations of $5, $10, $20, $50 and $100. They were bound by rubber bands and stacked so that each set amounted to $1,000. Although there was one uneven stack because the total was $30,060, Alexander believed that he had only $30,000 and so stated to the police.

It is proper to consider the convergence of the lie about the source of the money, the lie…