On Maine’s border with Canada, in February 2005, U.S. Border Patrol agents spotted a snowmobile driving up some nearby railroad tracks. The snowmobile’s tracks indicated an illegal drive into Canada. Shortly afterwards, two employees of the railroad gave the agents a large duffel bag containing U.S. currency, which the employees averred to have found. A test indicated the scent of drugs on the bag. The United States filed a complaint in a federal district court against the $165,580 under federal statutes that provide for the forfeiture of money involved in illegal drug deals and the transporting of unreported cash out of the United States. The two railroad employees contested the claim. In United States v. One Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Dollars ($165,580) in U.S. Currency, the court denied the employees’ claim. They had not complied with state law procedures for claiming an interest in lost property. Even if they had, however, “[f]ederal statutory law grants the United States Government an ownership interest in the cash.

The law provides that  illicit cash is forfeited to the Government and the Complaint clarifies that the money in this case is the other side of an illegal drug deal and as such, is illicit. The Claimants can no more claim ownership in the proceeds of an illegal drug deal than they could claim rightful ownership in illegal drugs themselves  . Simply because they found the money on the side of the railroad tracks does not legitimize the cash or their claim to it.” There was a third party involved in this case. Shortly after the USBP agents confiscated the bag of cash, a snowmobiler who identified himself as Allen Gagnon approached and made conversation, though without mentioning the unconcealed bag in the agents’ possession. Later, the snowmobiler claimed the bag, describing its contents accurately. Unable to satisfactorily account for the source of the money, however, or to logically explain its presence in the bag and in the woods, this individual did not respond to the government’s complaint and was held in default). As for the bag, in the court’s opinion, “there are two possible ‘true’ owners: Allen Gagnon and the United States. It is a logical inference from the Complaint that the owner of the $165,580.00 is Allen Gagnon. 

It would be strange for someone with no connection to the money in the duffel bag not only to know the exact amount of money in the bag, but also how it was wrapped and where it was lost. Mr. Gagnon's decision not to file a claim in the unusual circumstances of this case does not mean that he is not the owner; it only means that—likely for good and sufficient reason—he has decided not to claim the cash.” A federal statute provides an “innocent owner” defense, under which: “[a]n innocent owner's interest in property shall not be forfeited.” An “owner” is defined as someone with an ownership interest, not someone “with only a general unsecured interest, or claim against, the property or estate of another.”

Discuss. Do you agree with the courts holding? Is it fair? What would be the policy considerations for Maine’s estray statute? What if the facts were different and Madore and LaPointe had placed the duffel bag in one of their cars, and law enforcement impounded the car with the cash? In your opinion, would there be success in claiming ownership of the car and its contents? Why or why not? Also, in your discussion, answer the following question; "why is the United States suing a sum of money?"