N.D.Tex.: Rule 41 doesn’t apply to forfeiture actions; Supplemental Rule G(8)(a) does

The government sought forfeiture of the owner’s cash after it was seized at DFW after a dog sniff on his bag. The owner responded with a motion to suppress under Rule 41, but that doesn’t apply in forfeiture cases. Supplemental Rule G(8)(a) does. A knowing or substantial violation of the Fourth Amendment has to be shown. The government claims consent to search, and the owner doesn’t really challenge that, arguing instead lack of a search warrant. There was reasonable suspicion for his stop boarding the airplane. The court finds consent. United States v. $39,900 in U.S. Currency, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7496 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2024).

There is no Fourth Amendment violation; therefore, qualified immunity doesn’t even come up. By the video: When the officers tried to pull defendant over, he kept driving to his own house and jumped out of the car and pulled a gun. They shot him. This was reasonable. Hodge v. Engleman, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 994 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2024)* (why was this case even filed?).

Boilerplate information in the affidavit for warrant doesn’t matter as long as the critical facts show probable cause, and here they did. There were five facts supporting probable cause here. United States v. Morton, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7580 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 16, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Forfeiture, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.