How One Traveler Fought the DEA—and Won: The Brian Moore Airport Seizure Case

Civil asset forfeiture at American airports has become increasingly common, especially when travelers carry cash. But one recent case out of Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport shows what happens when a traveler fights back—and wins.

This article breaks down what happened to Brian Moore, how his lawyer Jason D. Sammis at Sammis Law Firm in Tampa, FL, challenged the seizure, and why the government ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice and returned every dollar. The case also resulted in an important ruling confirming that Moore “substantially prevailed,” making the government liable for his attorney’s fees.

The Airport Stop That Started It All

On March 26, 2021, Brian Moore was sitting at his gate at the Atlanta airport waiting for a flight to Los Angeles. He had passed security and was simply waiting to board. According to the defense filings, three DEA agents suddenly approached and surrounded him, immediately asking about:

• Where he was going
• Why he was traveling
• Whether he had drugs
• Whether he had cash in his bag

Moore later explained in an affidavit that he did not feel free to leave, believed he was detained, and feared he would be arrested if he tried to walk away. The agents pressed him for an exact dollar amount of cash. They then told him they intended to seize his bag and get a warrant, implying that he would miss his flight if he did not “consent.”

Ultimately, under pressure and surrounded by law enforcement, Moore signed a “consent” form that he later described as coerced. Agents searched his bag and seized $8,500 in cash, money he explained came from the sale of his late grandfather’s vehicle.

The Legal Battle Begins

When the DEA served notice of the seizure, Moore fought back.

He hired Jason Sammis who helped him filed a formal verified claim for court action with the DEA, forcing the government to file a federal forfeiture complaint. DOJ filed its lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia, alleging without evidence that the money was tied to drug trafficking.

Attorney Jason Sammis represented Moore at the trial-court level, and his filings built the entire record that later led the Eleventh Circuit to conclude Moore had “substantially prevailed.”

Jason Sammis filed a detailed motion to suppress all evidence, arguing that the agents:

• Lacked reasonable suspicion
• Conducted an unconstitutional Terry stop
• Prolonged Moore’s detention illegally
• Obtained “consent” through coercion
• Searched and seized the bag without a warrant

The motion sought suppression of everything—Moore’s identity, statements, and the seized currency. The court scheduled an evidentiary hearing.

Opposing DOJ’s Attempt to Stall

The Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) attempted to extend discovery at the last minute, claiming it needed more time to depose Brian Moore’s grandmother. Jason Sammis opposed the “emergency” extension request, and the court denied it. This was a key moment: the government was running out of time, and the record was not supporting its allegations.

Filing Summary Judgment

Jason Sammis then filed a full motion for summary judgment with a statement of undisputed facts. The brief showed:

• No drugs were found
• No suspicious travel pattern
• No incriminating statements
• A clean financial trail for the cash

The government now had to decide: fight a losing battle or fold.

The Government Surrenders

Within five days of receiving Moore’s summary judgment motion—and days before the scheduled suppression hearing—DOJ abruptly filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice and return the $8,500. In its own words, DOJ stated it would “not be in the public interest to pursue this action.” That is extraordinarily rare in civil forfeiture cases. Jason Sammis filed a qualified objection, agreeing to dismissal only if the court acknowledged that Moore had “substantially prevailed” under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) so he could pursue attorney’s fees.

The Fight for Attorney’s Fees

The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b), requires the government to pay attorney’s fees when a claimant substantially prevails. But DOJ didn’t want to concede that point. Jason Sammis submitted a detailed fee petition and a supplemental memorandum, supported by an expert declaration stating that $400/hour is a reasonable market rate for forfeiture litigation in Atlanta.

He documented his attorney fees which were in excess of $15,000 —almost double the amount originally seized. The district court denied fees, but that decision was later reversed after the case went to the Eleventh Circuit (handled on appeal by the Institute for Justice).

The appellate court held that:

• Dismissal with prejudice materially altered the parties’ legal relationship
• The court’s order gave the dismissal the required “judicial imprimatur”
• Moore did substantially prevail

This is now a significant decision for forfeiture practitioners nationwide.

Why This Case Matters

Airport cash seizures often rely on intimidation, not evidence. Brian Moore was doing nothing suspicious. Agents approached him simply because he “fit a profile.” This case shows the government may abandon weak forfeiture claims when challenged aggressively. “Dismissed with prejudice” is a win under CAFRA that triggers:

• Attorney’s fees
• Pre-judgment interest
• Post-judgment interest
• Cost recovery.

Most travelers give up. Brin Moore didn’t—and he won everything back. The Brian Moore case is a textbook example of how travelers can win against wrongful airport seizures when they fight back with experienced counsel. What began as an unconstitutional stop by three DEA agents ended with:

• The return of 100% of Moore’s money
• A dismissal with prejudice
• A confirmed finding that he substantially prevailed
• A right to attorney’s fees and interest

This case will continue to help forfeiture claimants nationwide, especially those facing airport seizures where no criminal charges are filed.