I am curious how others handle this situation: DPS stops a vehicle with only one occupant. After eveything is completed they seize US Currency as contraband under CCP Article 59. The lone occupant states the money is not his, it belongs to someone in Mexico. He gives no other identifiers. My question is: since Article 59.04 states we must serve the owner of the property and any interest holder in the property, do you do anything with such a vague statement by the vehicle occupant? Do you list "unknown respondent" in your petition or ignore it and only serve the occupant of the vehicle?

Allison--In 3 1/2 years of doing forfeitures, I don't think I've ever had one quite like that, but I have had a fair number where they gave such a lame story that I didn't end up including as a party someone they actually DID name. Usually, those are going to be something along the lines of "Where did you get $2,000?" "Um, well, I do landscaping and I've been saving it up. And I'm on my way to go pay off my sister's car note for her. Actually, you know, it's from my income tax refund. My girlfriend works at Kroger, I mean K-Mart, and she gave it to me so I could pay the deposit for an apartment for us."

So, while I could sometimes come up with a name for the girlfriend, in that particular context, it doesn't seem reasonable to include her. I do have the officer put the defendant's whole convoluted explanation in the affidavit so if he (or anyone else) comes up with anything better sounding later on, we can counter it with what he said at the time. It seems to me like your case would fall into the same category. How likely is it that this guy actually has a large amount of someone else's money and can't give them a name? Good luck with whatever you decide.

Elizabeth

In dealing with personal property and /or cash I generally only serve those persons in possession of the money or property unless I have solid information that a third party has an interest in the property. By solid information I mean a name and address. I don't read the statute to require us to serve every person the Defendant names, but instead to require us to serve every person we, in good faith, can determine has an interest in the property or money.

I agree that I would have the officer include the convoluted explanation given by the Defendant in the officer's affidavit as a way of tying down the story at an early date.

My other thought would be to put the onus on the Defendant. When you serve him with citation go ahead and attach requests for initial disclosures which require him to identify by name and address all other persons he contends are parties/possible parties to this action.

Does anyone else use the newspaper? If the possessor has disclaimed the money - does anyone else spend the money to serve any potential respondents/claimants who may want the opportunity to claim an interest? It could be our judges, but in every forfeiture case - I have to have some method of service prior to a default being granted. We even had one judge who refused to sign a default when the attorney accepted service on behalf of his client. The judge thought the attorney should file an answer.

I tend to try and not use service by publication due to the costs of publishing and the costs of hiring an ad litem attorney. Unless you have a relatively large seizure ($10,000 or more), by the time you pay court costs and all the other fees, you end up with a lot of work for not a lot of money. Although I could see circumstances, such as those mentioned by you, that leave no alternative but to serve a "John Doe" citation by publication under 59.04(k).

I have handled Chapter 59 forfeitures in our county for over 6 years and in our area the fact pattern alluded to above is not at all unusual. I would simply issue citation to the individual in possession of the currency at the time of seizure and not waste time and money with a citation by publication to some unknown individual.

If there were in fact someone other than the possessor with a claim (legitimate or not) to the currency that individual could easily file a plea in intervention to the forfeiture lawsuit.