United States v. Brewer, No. 14-1787 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDeputy Wintle initiated a traffic stop and obtained Brewer’s consent to a sniff search of the vehicle. The drug dog alerted to the trunk. Wintle patted Brewer down. Brewer had no weapons on his person, but had $1,000 in cash in his pocket. While searching the trunk, Wintle found backpacks with a strong odor of raw marijuana, containing $63,530. Deputies later located disability documents, old paystubs, tax returns, and articles entitled “How to Make Wicked Hash” and “How to Make Weed Oil without Blowing Yourself Up.” Deputies did not recover any drugs. After the seizure, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(1)(A)(iv), the government sent notices to the address listed on Brewer’s driver’s license and to the address listed on the vehicle registration and insurance paperwork. All were returned to sender. Notice was later sent by certified mail and accepted by signature. The government later published notice and sent a third round of notices. After Brewer filed a claim to the currency, the government sought its forfeiture as proceeds from drug transactions or money to facilitate drug transactions. Brewer moved to dismiss, alleging that the government did not notify him of the seizure within 90 days as required by statute. The court denied the motion and ordered forfeiture. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding findings that a substantial connection existed between the currency and drug activity; that Brewer failed to prove he was an innocent owner; and that he failed to show gross disproportionality to sustain an Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines challenge.
Court Description: Forfeitures. The government made reasonable attempts to notify Brewer of the forfeiture proceedings by mailed notices and publication; the evidence established Brewer was well aware of the seizure and could have filed a timely claim; government proved a substantial connection between the seized funds and drug activity, and the court did not err in forfeiting the cash; Brewer did not meet his burden of proving innocent ownership; seizure of the cash was not an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.