CA8: Failure to answer interrogatories leads to striking 4A defense to forfeiture

In a forfeiture case, the District Court did not err in striking defendant’s Fourth Amendment defense where he didn’t answer the special interrogatories. United States v. $154,853.00 in United States Currency, 744 F.3d 5597 (8th Cir. 2014):

Marcus also contends the district court abused its discretion in striking his claims without first addressing the constitutional privileges he asserted. Yet, Marcus’s refusal to answer the special interrogatories on the asserted basis of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment privileges did not preclude the district court from striking his claims. See United States v. $148,840.00 in U.S. Currency, 521 F.3d 1268, 1273-74 (10th Cir. 2008) (“A claimant’s decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination … does not decrease his burden of establishing standing[.]”). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(8)(a) (“[A] party with standing to contest the lawfulness of the seizure may move to suppress the use of the property as evidence.”). Further, Supplemental Rule G(8)(c) requires the government’s motion to strike a claim or answer “must be decided before any motion by the claimant to dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(8)(c)(ii)(A). Thus, the district court was not required to address Marcus’s constitutional claims before addressing the government’s motions to strike.