Is Possession of Cash Evidence of a Crime?

Is Possession of Cash Evidence of a Crime?

Legal Sidebari

Is Possession of Cash Evidence of a Crime?
September 23, 2022
Although possession of a large sum of cash may suggest criminal activity, police discovery of a
substantial amount of currency is not enough alone to justify the government’s confiscation of the money.
Thus, on August 10, 2022, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth
Circuit) overturned a district court order of summary judgment regarding the confiscation of cash
discovered at the scene of a car crash. “[T]he [g]overnment argue[d] that lawful citizens do not carry
around large amounts of cash” and consequently that the cash was forfeitable as the proceeds of drug
trafficking. Yet, when the government comes upon cash and seeks to confiscate it, the government bears
the burden of proving that the cash is forfeitable by virtue of its connection to some forfeiture-triggering
crime. In United States v. McClellan, the Fourth Circuit held that the government had failed to satisfy its
burden.
Background
As recounted by the Fourth Circuit, in January 2019, Dereck McClellan crashed his car at a service
station. At the time, he lived with Yvonne Silver and their three children in a mortgage-free home he had
inherited. He had also inherited $110,000, some of which he used as “seed money” for Silver’s consumer
products business. McClellan “had a long criminal record” as well—a 2002 conviction for unlawfully
carrying a weapon, another conviction in 2007 for cocaine trafficking, a third in 2008 for assault and
battery and receiving stolen property, and a fourth in 2013 for possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute.
When police arrived at the scene of the crash, they found McClellan passed out in the car with an empty
bottle of Hennessey beside him and a marijuana blunt in the ash tray. Bundles of cash, totaling close to
$70,000, were scattered throughout the car. McClellan had two medical marijuana identity cards on him
and admitted he had been smoking marijuana.
Local police arrested McClellan at the scene, seized the cash, and charged him with public drunkenness
and driving in violation of the state’s “open bottle” law. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) conducted ion scans on the currency, which tested positive for cocaine and an explosive substance.
DHS initiated civil confiscation proceedings. McClellan and Silver filed claims for the cash, which they
described as proceeds from Silver’s business. The district court granted the government’s motion for
summary judgment, concluding there was no dispute that the seized cash currently constituted the
proceeds of drug trafficking.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10829
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
Legal Context
Although forfeiture ordinarily begins with a confiscation-triggering criminal offense, federal law
classifies forfeitures as civil or criminal according to the nature of proceedings by which confiscation is
accomplished. Criminal forfeiture occurs in conjunction with the criminal prosecution of the accused
property owner.
Federal civil forfeiture proceedings treat crime-tainted property as the defendant and begin with a seizure
of the property. The federal agency with custody of the property notifies owners and others with an
interest in the property of their right to insist on judicial forfeiture proceedings. If no one comes forward,
the agency may confiscate the property administratively. When claimants challenge the proposed
forfeiture, the government files a civil complaint against the property in federal district court and bears
the burden of establishing that the property at issue is forfeitable by virtue of relationship to a forfeiture-
triggering offense such as drug trafficking.
Fourth Circuit Decision
In McClellan, DHS obtained an arrest warrant for the cash and notified McClellan and Silver of its intent
to confiscate. When they challenged the proposed forfeiture, the government filed a civil complaint in
district court naming the cash as defendant. After an exchange of interrogatories (civil discovery), the
government moved for summary judgment. A district court must deny a motion for summary judgment if
no jury could reasonably fail to find that the moving party had proven his or her case. The McClellan
district court granted the government’s motion, and McClellan and Silver appealed.
A majority of the Fourth Circuit panel reversed, concluding that a reasonable jury could interpret the
evidence to support either party. From the majority’s perspective, McClellan’s criminal record might
suggest a propensity to engage in drug trafficking, but the Federal Rules of Evidence precluded such an
inference. According to the majority, cash not infrequently tests positive for cocaine without affording any
necessary inference of where, when, or how the money acquired the taint. The medical marijuana cards
might also just as easily be seen to imply personal use rather than trafficking, the majority reasoned.
Finally, although the court indicated that McClellan and Silver’s tax records looked “fishy,” the records
did not raise a necessary inference the couple was drug dealing. McClellan and Silver offered evidence of
legitimate sources of income that a jury might have found creditable, in the appellate court’s view—
McClellan’s inheritance of $110,000 in addition to Silver’s insurance payout, sales of two cars, and
employment at a bar.
The majority also rejected the government’s attempt to invoke the res ipsa loquitur legal doctrine. Under
that doctrine, arising in tort, “when a thing which causes injury, without fault of the injured person, is
shown to be under the exclusive control of the defendant, and the injury is such as in the ordinary course
of things, does not occur if the one having such control uses proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in
the absence of explanation, that the injury arose from the defendant’s want to care.” By the same token,
the government argued that “lawful citizens do not carry around large amounts of cash that are rubber-
banded and bundled, so the Claimants must explain the source of the cash, or the [g]overnment is entitled
to summary judgment.” The court pointed out, however, that even if McClellan and Silver offered no
explanation, “the jury could still conclude that, given the dearth of direct evidence of drug dealing, the
cash does not constitute drug proceeds.”
A dissenting member of the Fourth Circuit panel felt that the government “presented ample evidence that
McClellan was transporting drug money and that the cash in his car was subject to forfeiture.”
The decision confirms that possession of even a large amount of cash does not justify confiscation of the
money without further evidence of wrongdoing.

Congressional Research Service
3

Author Information

Charles Doyle

Senior Specialist in American Public Law

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10829 · VERSION 1 · NEW