## Facts

- Brian Szymczak was stopped in Iowa during a routine traffic stop while driving his van back to California after a trip to Michigan.
- The officer smelled marijuana and asked Szymczak whether there was marijuana or a large amount of cash in the van.
- Szymczak initially denied having either, then admitted he had several marijuana cigarettes and about $60,000 in cash.
- Szymczak claimed the cash was his life savings from a long career as a telephone repairman.
- To support that lawful-source claim, Szymczak produced only limited tax returns and documentation.
- Szymczak stated he brought the money to Michigan to buy a safe but did not purchase one.
- Szymczak consented to a search of the van.
- The officer found more than $60,000 in small-denomination bills in a tool bag and in multiple sealed plastic packets located on the van’s floor and hidden in the bottom of a cereal box.
- The officer also found marijuana in various locations in the van, including marijuana sealed in plastic packets, and paraphernalia for consuming marijuana.
- After the stop, authorities searched Szymczak’s storage unit in Michigan and found marijuana residue, paraphernalia associated with consuming and selling marijuana, and two firearms.
- Szymczak later pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance.
- The United States filed an in rem civil forfeiture action against the seized $61,200 and moved for summary judgment, alleging the currency was connected to unlawful drug trafficking.
- Szymczak opposed forfeiture, maintaining the money came from lawful earnings and was not connected to drug dealing.

## Issues

1. Whether, under CAFRA, the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the $61,200 was subject to forfeiture because it was proceeds of, or was substantially connected to, unlawful controlled-substance trafficking.
2. Whether Szymczak produced evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact about a lawful source and lawful purpose for the currency sufficient to defeat summary judgment (including any innocent-owner theory).

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court ordered forfeiture of the $61,200 to the United States.
- The court held the government met its burden under CAFRA to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, a substantial connection between the currency and drug trafficking.
- The court relied on the totality of circumstantial evidence, including the large amount of cash, the small denominations, the concealment of the cash in a cereal box and tool bag, and the use of sealed plastic packets consistent with methods associated with drug proceeds.
- The court also considered the presence of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia in the van, as well as later-discovered paraphernalia linked to selling marijuana and firearms in the storage unit, as corroborating evidence of trafficking activity rather than mere personal use.
- The court found Szymczak’s explanation (life savings carried to buy a safe) inadequately supported by records and insufficient to create a triable issue in light of the government’s showing.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 983), the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture.
- In drug-related forfeitures (including currency alleged to be drug proceeds or facilitation property), the government must show a substantial connection between the property and the controlled-substance offense.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; a nonmovant must respond with specific evidence, not unsupported assertions, to show a triable issue.
- The government may rely on circumstantial evidence to establish the required connection, including the amount of cash, denomination pattern, concealment, packaging methods, the presence of drugs or drug-distribution items, and law-enforcement testimony about common trafficking practices.
- A claimant opposing forfeiture must present competent evidence of a legitimate source and explanation for the property sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to rule in the claimant’s favor.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the United States and forfeited the $61,200 because the combined evidence—concealed, sealed, small-denomination currency found alongside marijuana and related items, plus later-discovered distribution-related paraphernalia and firearms—proved a substantial connection to drug trafficking by a preponderance of the evidence, and Szymczak’s minimally documented “life savings” explanation did not create a genuine dispute for trial.


United States v. $61,200.00 in U.S. Currency, More or Less, 805 F. Supp. 2d 682 (2010)