UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAMIAN PHILLIPS and CURRENCY, $200,000.00 IN U.S.
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Motz, February 21, 2018
Civil Forfeiture – An individual seeking to intervene in the government’s seizure of money must show “some evidence of ownership” beyond merely his word.

Facts:
In 2014, North Carolina police officers received information that the odor of marijuana was coming from a section of storage units in a self-storage facility.
After using a drug-sniffing dog to narrow down the source of the odor, officers obtained a search warrant.
Inside the storage locker, they found a duffel bag containing $200,000 in vacuum-sealed bags. No CDS was located, but the drug-sniffing dog alerted on the currency.
The owner of the locker had previously been convicted of maintaining a vehicle or dwelling for controlled substances, and, in a separate incident, felony possession of marijuana
When officers seized the money and moved to have it forfeit civilly, the locker-owner’s brother filed a claim that the money was actually his and that he was letting his brother hold on to it in his locker.
The trial court dismissed the brother’s claim, finding that he had not provided enough proof to show that he had standing to claim the money.
He then appealed, arguing that he should be allowed to challenge the government’s forfeiture proceeding on the money.

Held: The Fourth Circuit disagreed.

Forfeiture – Standing – a claimant seeking to challenge a civil forfeiture must have an ownership or possessory interest in the property, “because an owner or possessor of property that has been seized necessarily suffers an injury that can be redressed at least in part by return of the seized property.”

From the Case: “Demanding more than “some evidence” of ownership in such cases would be inappropriate in part because of how challenging it can be to document ownership of property seized by law enforcement. This is especially true for cash, as the very qualities that make paper money useful for illicit activity — in particular, its untraceability — often make it difficult to prove that any cash is legitimate, no matter its source.”

Note: This is different than for criminal forfeiture, where a third-party must show that he has “dominion and control” over the items to be forfeited by establishing his “legal right, title, or interest in the property”