United States v. $8,440,190.00 in U.S. Currency
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHoward, Circuit Judge
I concur in the majority’s opinion, except for its conclusion that Van Bommel demonstrated constitutional standing to contest the forfeiture of the $10,000 found on his person. Van Bommel did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had a colorable interest in that money; he therefore lacks standing to contest its forfeiture.
As the majority explains, there is every reason to believe that Van Bommel was paid $10,000 to transport the bales of currency that he later threw into the sea. Thus, at one point Van Bommel had a colorable claim of ownership of that $10,000. But he signed a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Mullins v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
- Mary Z. Asseo, Etc. v. Pan American Grain Company, Inc., and Pan American Grain Manufacturing Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1986
- United States v. $92,203.00 in United States CurrencyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.