By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 11, 2013//
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Criminal
Forfeiture — standing
A claimant need only assert a property interest in money subject to forfeiture proceedings to have standing to challenge the forfeiture.
“In defending the judge’s analysis and conclusion the government adds that Johnson ‘also fails to meet his burden to establish Article III standing. In order to meet this burden, a claimant must show that they [sic] have a colorable legal interest in the claimed property.’ That is incorrect. The government has confused the requirement of pleading Article III standing, which in a case such as this requires no more than alleging that the government should be ordered to turn over to the claimant money that it’s holding that belongs to him, with the additional requirements imposed on claimants in civil forfeiture proceedings by Rule G(5). But Johnson’s claim satisfied those requirements as well. Because the claim was verified it was evidence, like an affidavit. The government was free to respond with evidence that Johnson had no rights in the money but it could not simply demand that he prove, beyond the claim itself if compliant with Rule G(5), that he had standing—especially that he ‘prove’ Article III standing. Imagine what it would do to federal litigation to require every plaintiff (or claimant in a forfeiture suit, who is like a plaintiff) not only to allege, but to prove, facts establishing the district court’s constitutional authority to decide his case. That is not required. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561-62 (1992).”
Reversed and Remanded.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Magnus-Stinson, J., Posner, J.