Page | 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT FOR THE ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

search, and did not say he was withdrawing his oral consent or limiting the scope of his oral consent. He did not try to block or prevent any part of the search. Significantly, when Thebeau resumed the search, Davis exhibited normal demeanor and engaged in friendly conversation with Officer Hoelscher. At some point standing outside the tractor-trailer, Davis told Hoelscher that years earlier he had been stopped in Texas and wrongfully arrested for possessing 200 pounds of marijuana. 2 Davis thought the officers already knew that he had “been in trouble” before. Thebeau had searched other Peterbilt tractors and was familiar with the layout of the typical sleeping area. The sleeping area of Davis’ tractor was inconsistent with other Peterbilt tractors he had seen. Thebeau lifted the mattress and saw a large piece of plywood covered in black material. When Thebeau lifted the plywood, which was hinged on the back, he saw Ziploc freezer bags full of large stacks of United States currency, rubber-banded together. 3 Thebeau described the space under the plywood (which was surrounded by aluminum tubing rails installed on the sheet metal at the base of the bed) as a “nonfactory void between the bottom of the mattress and the floor of the tractor which could conceal large amounts of currency [or] illegal narcotics” (Doc. 21-23, p. 5). 2 Testimony at the suppression hearing varied as to the chronological sequence reflected in Officer Hoelscher’s Declaration provided in response to the suppression motion (Doc. 21-25, p. 3). When Davis told the officers about the Texas traffic stop and seizure is irrelevant to the Court’s analysis and resolution of the suppression motion. 3 The currency was found to total $304,980. <strong>Page</strong> | 8
Davis was taken into custody and later released. The tractor-trailer and currency were seized. The Government filed this civil forfeiture proceeding, and the Davises filed claims, asserting that the currency and tractor-trailer belong to them. The Government served special interrogatories upon Randy and Delores Davis (“Claimants”), pursuant to Rule G(6)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Claimants responded. Claimants also filed the suppression motion now before the Court. In their suppression motion, Claimants deny that Randy Davis committed any traffic violation, deny that Randy consented to the search of the truck, argue that Randy actively resisted the search, and argue that Officer Thebeau “dismantled” the bed to find the currency (see, e.g., Doc. 15, p. 4 and p. 15), thereby exceeding the scope of any consent given. As explained below, the evidence belies this characterization and fails to support Claimants’ suppression arguments. The Court finds that the officers conducted a proper traffic stop, that Davis provided valid oral consent to search, that Thebeau merely raised the plywood sheet and saw the currency in the bin under the mattress, and this did not exceed the scope of the consent Davis voluntarily, knowingly gave. C. Overview of Civil Forfeiture Civil forfeiture proceedings are governed by statute, by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (the latter referred to in this Order simply as “Supplemental Rules”). 21 U.S.C. 881 declares certain property subject to forfeiture by the United States. The United States Attorney General may elect to seek criminal forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 982 <strong>Page</strong> | 9
Page 1 and 2: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT
Page 3 and 4: has 24 years of experience in law e
Page 5 and 6: mailed it back to the shipper from
Page 7: Davis then looked at Hoelscher’s
Page 11 and 12: facilitate a controlled substance o
Page 13 and 14: Government had not argued that the
Page 15 and 16: In order to stand before a court an
Page 17 and 18: Randy and Delores Davis assert that
Page 19 and 20: ears the burden of proving consent
Page 21 and 22: the officers that he had written Un
Page 23 and 24: marijuana or cocaine in the tractor
Page 25 and 26: “may search anywhere within the g
Page 27 and 28: establish standing” at the pretri
Page 29: Office shall reflect this deadline

Page | 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT FOR THE ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?