Thirteen years after government agents used forfeiture laws to seize over $100,000 in cash from an area man, even though he was never charged with a crime, he is still fighting to get it back.
Wood Dale resident Douglas Marrocco says he was unable to get a bank account, so he kept large amounts of cash in a shoebox, in a bowl, and even in his clothes. In 2002, he gave $101,200 to Vincent Fallon, a trusted friend who was to investigate a West Coast restaurant venture. But federal drug agents confronted Mr. Fallon as his train to Seattle pulled out of Union Station and seized the entire amount; Mr. Marrocco received no notice and had no opportunity to defend himself against the drug allegations. The agents, who did not have a search warrant, claim that Mr. Fallon gave them permission to search his belongings and that, after discovering the cash, a drug-sniffing dog alerted on a bag, indicating that narcotics had been present.
For over a decade, the case ping-ponged back and forth between the trial and appellate courts. Last January, a federal jury found in favor of the government. But Mr. Marrocco’s lawyer is hopeful that the verdict can be overturned, partially because of a 2012 Lake County case with similar facts that went against the government.
Consent Searches
In times past, only the property owner could give consent to search real or personal property. If authorities failed to obtain such consent prior to a search, the evidence could be excluded by the trial judge.
But the law has shifted in recent decades, and is now much more prosecutor-friendly. In most cases, a non-owner can consent to a property search if:
- Actual Custody: Answering a door or driving a car, particularly if no one else is at home or in the vehicle, constitute custody. The same thing applies to a bundle of cash in a bag, even though Mr. Fallon did not own the cash and could only use it for a limited purpose.
- Apparent Authority: A similar rationale applies when determining authority; the officers’ conclusion only has to be reasonable.
- Expectation of Privacy: If Property Owner has a locked box in a bedroom, Roommate cannot give authorities permission to break it open and search it.
Many times, the two sides give different accounts, as was the case in the above story. In these cases, the jury determines which witness is more credible.
Forfeiture Law
These laws have come under a great deal of scrutiny, mostly because of situations like the one described above. Essentially, the government can take money or other property if it has probable cause to believe that the property is either used in furtherance of a criminal activity or is the result of criminal activity.
The Justice Department recently resumed its policy of aggressively seeking asset forfeiture, even if the owner is not even prosecuted for a crime. The Supreme Court may eventually weigh in on the issue, as it already has with regard to seized assets and the Eighth Amendment right to counsel. State Courts have likewise seen a spike in seizures, especially along the I-80 corridor.
Reach Out to Assertive Attorneys
The laws regarding forfeiture and searches are extremely complex. For prompt assistance from a zealous criminal defense attorney in Schaumburg, contact Glasgow & Olsson. Convenient payment plans are available.