Free Reply - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00501-EWN

Document 53-2

Filed 02/20/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 00-cr-501-N THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Edward Wingfield, III, Defendant(s). ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ THIS MATTER having come before the Court on defendant Edward Wingfield, III's Motion for Return of Personal Property from Forfeiture under Due Process, and the United States' Response (ECF Document 46), and the Court being fully apprised, the Court FINDS that: 1. Defendant Edward L. Wingfield seeks return of "ten to twelve gold rings", three gold necklaces, cash, and a 1995 Subaru automobile. 2. The United States never had possession of a 1995 Subaru, ten to twelve rings, or three gold necklaces. 3. The Drug Enforcement Administration did timely and properly initiate an administrative forfeiture against the subject assets. 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (a); 18 U.S.C. § 983 (a). 4. Adequate and proper notice was sent to Wingfield. Dusenberry v. U.S., 534 U.S. 161, 170 (2002). Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). 5. Wingfield had a remedy at law, in that he could have and should have contested the administrative forfeiture. U.S. v. Dennino, 103 F. 3d 82, 84 (10th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Clark, 84 F -1-

Case 1:00-cr-00501-EWN

Document 53-2

Filed 02/20/2007

Page 2 of 2

3d. 378, 381 - 382 (10th Cir. 1996). 6. In spite of proper notice, Wingfield never contested the administrative forfeiture, the subject cash was administratively forfeited on March 6, 2001, and the 1995 Chevrolet Suburban was administratively forfeited on May 8, 2001. 7. The United States has thus established, with appropriate documentation, that the United States has never had possession of the rings, necklaces, or a 1995 Subaru. The United States has also demonstrated that the cash and a 1995 Chevrolet Suburban were correctly and property forfeited by the Drug Enforcement Administration after proper notice to Wingfield. 8. Having waited over four years after he was arrested, and three and a half years after he was incarcerated, to file his Motion for Return of Property, Wingfield is barred from seeking return of the property by the doctrine of Laches. It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion for Return of Property from Forfeiture under Due Process is DENIED. Dated this ________ day of February, 2007.

BY THE COURT:

EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-