Winning defendant fights for government to pay his legal fees

(The Center Square) – Government responsibility for the legal fees needed by a Georgia veteran to clear his record against Drug Enforcement Administration charges at before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Brian Moore had $8,500 with him in March 2021 as he prepared to board a flight from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to Los Angeles. DEA agents seized it, though they allowed Moore to continue to California where he was to record a music video.

Moore prevailed, and federal authorities voluntarily dismissed a civil forfeiture case with prejudice. While the DEA cannot try to forfeit his money again, federal authorities say Moore did not “substantially prevail” as it abandoned its efforts, meaning the government will not reimburse Moore for the cost of fighting the forfeiture.

“At some point, the government has to decide what is the best use of the court’s time and the government’s resources,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Sekret Sneed said.

“...Here, the government asked the court to dismiss with prejudice for pure practical reasons to conserve judicial resources. There is nothing in the record at all to indicate that the government believed that its action was unmeritorious.”

However, Moore’s attorneys point to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, which established that in “any civil proceeding to forfeit property under any provision of Federal law in which the claimant substantially prevails, the United States shall be liable for reasonable attorney fees.”

Moore’s attorneys asked the government to reimburse $15,200 for their time on the case, but federal authorities asked a judge to lower it. A federal judge denied the payment, saying that Moore didn’t prevail since the court did not rule on the “merits” of the case, leaving Moore responsible for paying one-third of his returned money to his attorneys under a contingency fee agreement.

“What I heard the government argue is essentially asking this court to upend the presumption of innocence and presume that Brian is not entitled to fees unless he was able to prove his innocence in court,” Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dan Alban argued in court.

“Of course, he was able to do that because … the government threw in the towel and said that ‘we want to dismiss with prejudice,’” Alban added. “Brian did not oppose that because he wanted his money back. But he did ask for a ruling that he substantially prevailed. The court declined to do that, and that was an error.”

Moore’s attorneys hope for an 11th Circuit panel ruling in a few months. Depending on the outcome, either side could appeal the case to the full 11th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.