United States v. $57,790 In U.S. Currency

MEMORANDUM **

“[Claimants who assert possessory interests in ... forfeited property and pro *605 vide some explanation for their possession have Article III standing to contest the forfeiture.” United States v. $100,348.00, 354 F.3d 1110 , 1119 (9th Cir.2004); see also United States v. $191,910.00, 16 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.1994) (“In order to contest a forfeiture, a claimant need only-have some type of property interest in the forfeited items. This interest need not be an ownership interest; it can be any type of interest, including a possessory interest”). Claimants here meet both requirements: Peraza-Soto asserts that she is the owner of the defendant currency, and Perez-Lopez asserts that he is a co-owner, as well as his wife’s bailee. Further, Perez-Lopez was driving the car in which the money was found. Claimants also provide some explanation for their possession: They argue they received the money in exchange for their home. Thus, claimants have met the Article III requirements for contesting the forfeiture.

United States v. Section 18, 976 F.2d 515, 520 (9th Cir.1992), and United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam), do not…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Although I do not disagree with my colleagues regarding how the standing issue should be analyzed in the context of a forfeiture case generally, I disagree with the application of that analysis to the district court’s decision in this case.

As the majority disposition acknowledges, a conclusion that Claimants lack standing “is simply another way of stating that Claimants had failed to establish on the merits a property interest entitling them to relief.” United States v. Hooper, 229 F.3d 818 , 820 n. 4 (9th Cir.2000) (citations omitted). Although the district court inartfully referenced Article III in resolving the question of Claimants’ “standing,” review of the court’s analysis reveals that it ultimately concluded that the Claimants “failed to establish on the merits a property interest entitling them to relief.” Hooper, 229 F.3d at 820 n. 4 (emphasis added). The district court conducted a trial and considered the evidence of ownership and *606 possessory interest presented by Claimants’ counsel.

I agree with the majority that Claimants met the Article III requirement for contesting the forfeiture. However, I am also of the opinion that…