Roger W. Miller - Page 8

                                                - 8 -                                                   

               filed a claim in District Court asserting that he owned the                              
               currency, that it was not the proceeds of narcotics                                      
               trafficking, and that evidence of the currency should be                                 
               suppressed in the District Court proceeding because it was                               
               the product of an unconstitutional search and seizure in                                 
               violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The District Court                                   
               granted petitioner's motion to suppress the evidence seized                              
               in the search and all statements made by petitioner after                                
               the search as fruit of the unlawful seizure, stating:                                    
               What happened on February 28, 1993, as shown by                                          
                     the evidence, is that an experienced officer had a                                 
                     hunch that two young men might be transporting                                     
                     drug proceeds; he did not have probable cause or a                                 
                     reasonable suspicion supported by articulable                                      
                     facts.  He stopped and questioned the two men in a                                 
                     way that placed them under his control after the                                   
                     first few moments.  Consent given under what the                                   
                     subject feels to be compulsion is not voluntary.                                   
                     * * *  Here, if consenting words were in fact                                      
                     uttered, they were not spoken voluntarily.                                         
               United States v. $138,921 in U.S. Currency, No. C93-1116WD,                              
               slip op. at 4-5 (W.D. Wash., July 27, 1994) (order on motion                             
               to suppress).  The District Court held that the Government                               
               did not sustain its burden of proof to show consent and                                  
               there was no other basis on which the warrantless search                                 
               could be held lawful.  Id. at 5.  Petitioner subsequently                                
               consented to forfeiture of $18,921 of the seized currency,                               
               and the remaining $120,000 was returned to him.                                          







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011