United States v. Real Property Known as 22249 Dolorosa Street

Good Law
190 F.3d 977·99 Daily Journal DAR 7351·1999 WL 692000·1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 16684·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5756
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 20, 1999Nos. 97-55642, 97-55650California3,093 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Schwarzer, J.

We must decide whether claimants in this forfeiture action against their real property at 22249 Dolorosa Street, Woodland Hills, California, are entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (1994) (“EAJA”). 1 In the district court, claimants James Hopkins, his mother, Gloria Lowndes, and his stepfather, Gary Lowndes, had moved successfully to suppress all documentary evidence seized from the defendant real property after a warrantless, nonconsensual search. At the probable cause hearing, however, the district court received testimony based on the suppressed evidence and found probable cause that funds used for the Dolorosa, property had come from Hopkins’ drug proceeds, reasoning that funds used for the property could be “traced” to Hopkins’ bank accounts. Claimants appealed and the government cross-appealed alleging lack of standing. We reversed the judgment, holding that the cross-appeal lacked merit, that the suppression ruling was not clearly erroneous, and that the finding of probable cause, having been based on suppressed evidence alone, was clear error. See United States v. 22249 Dolorosa St., 167 F.3d 509 (9th Cir.1999). Claimants…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.