United States v. Funds in the Amount of Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars ($30,670.00), Antonio Calhoun, Claimant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that a claimant travelling to “a recognized source city for illegal narcotics” is a relevant factor supporting forfeitability
• concluding that the information provided in the case indicated that dog alerts to currency should be entitled to probative weight, and concluding that drug dog’s positive alert was entitled to probative weight
• reasoning that claimant could not support testimony that he lawfully earned seized funds, given that funds exceeded his post-bankruptcy income by $25,000
• noting that claimant's time to challenge dog sniff evidence reliability is at the summary judgment stage
• reasoning that claimant could not support testimony that he lawfully earned seized funds, given that funds exceeded his post‐bankruptcy income by $25,000
• discussing scientific literature on drug-dog sniffs and concluding evidence was sufficient to accord probative weight to dog alert in case at bar

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).