Drug dog sniffs
Cases in which dog sniffs were ruled non-probative of drug trafficking:
United States v. $53,082.00 in U.S. Currency, 985 F.2d 245, 250, note 5 (6th Cir.1993) (as much as 96 percent of currency has narcotics contamination)
United States v. Carr, 25 F.3d 1194, 1214-1218 (3rd Cir.1994) (Becker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1086 (1995)
United States v. $639,558.00 in U.S. Currency, 955 F.2d 712, 714, note 2, (D.C.Cir.1992) (90 percent of currency contains sufficient quantities of cocaine to alert a trained dog)."
United States v. $506,231, 125 F.3d 442, 453 n. 8 (7th Cir. 1997) ("As Attorney Komie pointed out at oral argument, an American Bar Association Journal article described how Attorney General Janet Reno was subject to a canine-sniff and the bills in her purse triggered the dogs' response. See Courts Reject Drug-Tainted Evidence, 79 A.B.A. J. 22 (Aug.1993). The record in this case also contains the memo of a Drug Enforcement Agent chemist which states that the Federal Reserve rollers have been contaminated by cocaine, making the usefulness of dog sniffs limited.")
United States v. $30,060.00, 39 F.3d 1039, 1041-43 (9th Cir.1994) (noting widespread contamination and concluding that "the probative value of a positive dog alert in currency forfeiture cases in Los Angeles is significantly diminished")
Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine
U.S. v. Solorio, unreported decision 53 F.3d 341 (9th Cir. #93-50507. 50508, 4-26-95) (held: informant's contingency fee agreement was found not to be contingent on conviction, therefore not "outrageous government conduct" that would invalidate conviction.)
U.S. v. McMahan, [cite] (criminal defendant who agreed to cooperate as informant and reveal his assets was sentenced to 60 months. Later he was found to have withheld information about some of his assets and about involvement of 3 coconspirators. Court found he breached plea agreement and sentenced him to 292 months.)
U.S. v. $124,813, 53 F.3d 108 (5th Cir. #94-20866, 5-30-95) (held: Calero-Toledo did not create a general innocent owner defense where statute has none)
U.S. v. Real Estate, 6640 S.W. 48th St., Miami, 41 F.3d 1448 (11th Cir., Jan. 1995) (held: owner who acquires interest in property after tainting activity knowing of the illegal activity cannot be innocent owner; knowledge is measured at time of transfer of ownership)
State of New Jersey v. One 1990 Honda Accord, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, #A-6880-95T2, (June 16, 1997) (held: owners of property seized under N.J.S.A. 2C:64-l are entitled to a jury trial on demand, pursuant to article 1, paragraph 9 of the New JerseyConstitution; the summary disposition procedure in the statute does not pass constitutional muster. This is the forfeiture case of long-time FEAR member Lois McDermott.)
U.S. v. Real Property Located at 3756 W. 106th St., Inglewood, CA, 940 F.2d 1537 (9th Cir. 1992) (retired couple Melvin and Alice Hanberg lost their rental property because jury found they had not done enough to prevent drug dealing by their tenant. 9th Circuit rejected their proportionality defense (this was before Austin) but remanded for new trial on whether Mr. Hanberg was the agent for his wife so that his negligence is attributable to her.)
U.S. v. Land in Shelby County, Alabama, (11th Cir. No. 93-6519, decided February, 1995) (held: award of attorneys fees was not available under Equal Access to Justice Act to lienholder who prevailed under innocent owner defense; because property cannot be a "party," it can't be a prevailing party.)
Weng v. United States - 2nd Cir. No. No. 96-2918 (February 24, 1998) (held: notice of forfeiture sent to a prisoner at the place where he is believed to be incarcerated will only be effective if actually received by him).
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
U.S. v. Real Property & Premises, 4003-4005 5th Ave., Brooklyn, 1995 WL 302501 (2nd Cir. #94-6149, 5-18-95) (held: where claimant had refused to comply with discovery, claiming privilege against self-incrimination, until confronted with government motion for summary judgment, court did not err in prohibiting claimant from withdrawing privilege and submitting evidence to rebut summary judgment)
U.S. v. $292,888.04, 54 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. No. 93-16751, decided May 24, 1995) (held: trial court decision re: denial of speedy trial is reviewed de novo on appeal; 30-month delay not excessive under circumstances)
U.S. v. 3 Parcels in La Plata, 53 F.3d 341 (9th Cir. #93-16633, 16642, 16873, 5-2-95) (held: a claimant's self-serving testimony is enough to withstand summary judgment; summary judgment is inappropriate even though claimant did not record his deed until after government filed lis pendens)