of his informant, “A”, in addition to the evidence of the A’s first hand knowledge of the existence of marijuana on the Markt’s residence and Sgt. Melia’ own evidence of his independent reason to believe that the Markts were in possession of marijuana, the court concludes that there was more than sufficient evidence to support the issuance of the search warrant and thus that the identity of “B” is not material to the validity of held that 21 U.S.C. § 881 is “predominantly civil in nature” and does not trigger the full range of criminal safeguards. United States v. $250,000, 808 F.2d 895, 900 (1st Cir.1987) (citing Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232, 93 S.Ct. 489, supra). See also United States v. One 1974 Porsche 911-S Vehicle, 682 F.2d 283, 285 (1st Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). This action, therefore, is a civil action and
holding that because of its civil nature section 881 does not require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal violation occurred holding that a  881 forfeiture proceeding is a civil in rem action that is independent of any factually related criminal actions holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture holding that a party cannot waive in rem jurisdiction under florida law and a court proceeding pursuant to in rem jurisdiction must actually possess in rem jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of the matter holding that a claimant submits to personal jurisdiction by appearing in an in rem civil forfeiture action