Bush v. United States

• Decision Date: 01 February 1968
• Docket Number: No. 23638.,23638.
• Citation: 389 F.2d 485
• Parties: Charles E. BUSH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

389 F.2d 485 (1968)

Charles E. BUSH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23638.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

February 1, 1968.

Ray Sandstrom, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for appellant.

Lloyd G. Bates, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.^*

SIMPSON, Circuit Judge:

This is an action brought under 22 U.S.C.A. § 401,¹ wherein the libelant (United States) seeks forfeiture of a Piper Aztec aircraft. The libel alleges that on December 28, 1963, the aircraft was illegally exported and removed from the United States for the purpose of conducting a bombing raid on the Island of Cuba. Appellant Charles E. Bush, owner of an interest in the Piper Aztec by virtue of a lease-purchase agreement, has intervened to assert a claim to the aircraft. In the answer to the libel, claimant Bush denies that the Piper Aztec was exported in violation of the law, and further prays that it be restored to him. During the proceedings below the aircraft was returned to Bush pursuant to his posting bond of $15,000.00. Subsequently, the aircraft was sold, and the United States is now seeking forfeiture of the bond.

It should be noted that 22 U.S.C.A. § 401(b) provides that the provisions of the customs laws² are to be followed with respect to judicial forfeitures such as the instant case. Specifically, the provisions of 19 U.S.C.A. § 1615³ spell out the burden of proof procedures once probable cause has been established.

We are faced with three distinct issues on this appeal: (1) whether the Aztec aircraft in question is a commodity within the meaning of the Export Control Act (50 App., U.S.C.A. §§ 2021-2032); (2) whether the Government adequately met the burden of establishing probable cause, for seizure of the aircraft, thus shifting the burden to the claimant pursuant to 19 U.S.C.A. § 1615; and (3) whether the aircraft was in fact exported in violation of the law. Our answer is "yes" to all three questions, leading us to affirm.

I.

The first contention of the appellant is foreclosed by the regulations promulgated under the Export Control Act. In 15 C.F.R. 370.1(f) commodity is defined as "any article, material, or supply except technical data." The aircraft in question clearly falls within this definition of commodity; the first contention of appellant is without merit.

The appellant has conceded in his brief that the licensing arrangements under which he operated his various aircraft "are so worded as to provide that an export permit is necessary if the aircraft is intended to be removed to Cuba rather than the Bahama Islands."⁴

It is clear that the provisions of Section 371.25(b) make the exportation unlawful if the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the intended destination of the aircraft was Cuba. The sufficiency of the evidence on this point will be discussed in parts II and III of the opinion.

II.

A brief resumé of the facts is necessary for a thorough understanding of the balance of this opinion. On the afternoon of December 28, 1963, the Piper Aztec in question took off from Broward International Airport, Broward County, Florida, and landed shortly thereafter at the airport in Bimini. On this flight the aircraft was piloted by William Shearer, an American pilot hired by Bush, and had no passengers aboard. About the same time the Piper Aztec left Broward International, a boat named the Ebb Tide left Miami. Towards evening the Ebb Tide rendezvoused with a smaller boat a short distance off the Miami coast. The Ebb Tide took the smaller boat in tow and proceeded in an easterly direction. Customs agents were keeping the Ebb Tide under surveillance. Once the Ebb Tide had taken the smaller boat in tow, the Customs agents pursued, overtook and boarded the two boats. Aboard the smaller boat were four individuals, bombs, various naval and aerial maps, and propaganda leaflets which set out information relative to bombing raids on the island of Cuba during the summer of 1963. Both boats were seized by the Customs agents. Two of the individuals aboard the smaller boat were Evelio Alpizar and Daniel Orlando Denis.

An accurate summary of the Customs agents' testimony is that prior to December 28, 1963, United States Customs agents had been investigating various air strikes which had been made against the island of Cuba. The investigation focused, in large part, upon MIRR, a Cuban revolutionary group headed by Dr. Orlando Bosch. Customs agents had information that Dr. Bosch's group had carried out several bombing raids on Cuba with rented civilian aircraft which had left the United States unarmed and piloted by American pilots and then flown to an airstrip in Bimini. According to the information available to the Customs agents, the planes had been supplied with armaments and personnel by boats which had left Florida and arrived at Bimini after the airport in Bimini had closed for the night and was without supervisory personnel. The bombing raids were then staged during the time the airport was closed.

The Customs agents also had information that a further raid might be conducted sometime during December, 1963. In their investigation directed towards preventing any such further raids, Customs agents paid close attention to certain persons they knew to have been associated with MIRR. This group included Daniel Orlando Denis, Evelio Alpizar, and William Johnson. On or about December 15, 1963, William Johnson was seen aboard the Ebb Tide. This fact led the Customs agents to pay close attention to, and follow the movements of the Ebb Tide.

Customs agents also attempted to determine what planes in the area might be used for any further bombing raids. One of the planes towards which the Customs agents directed their attention was the plane which is the subject matter of this litigation. Earlier in 1963, another plane owned by Mr. Bush had been seized in connection with certain alleged neutrality violations. The plane seized earlier had been piloted by Evelio Alpizar, although Mr. Bush had claimed at that time that the use of the plane had been unauthorized. During December of 1963, Customs agents knew that Alpizar had been taking flight instructions from Bush. On the basis of the information they possessed, the Customs agents, during the month of December 1963, paid close attention to the Piper Aztec owned by Mr. Bush. Flight authorities were requested to notify the Customs agents of any flight plans filed for the aircraft. Further, Customs agents started flying over the landing strip at Bimini to observe the planes parked there. In flying over the Bimini airport, they were specifically watching for a landing of Bush's Piper Aztec. On December 28, 1963 the Customs agents learned of the arrival of said aircraft at the Bimini airport. On the night of December 28, 1963, the Piper Aztec was left parked on the Bimini airstrip. On December 29, 1963, Mr. Shearer flew the plane back to Broward International Airport without any passengers aboard. On December 30, 1963, the aircraft was seized by Customs agents at the Broward field.

The appellant argues that the government's evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause for the institution of the forfeiture proceedings. It is well settled that once probable cause has been found to support the initial seizure, the burden shifts to the claimant to show that the seized article was not actually exported in violation of the law. This Court laid down this principle in Rubin v. United States, 5 Cir. 1961, 289 F.2d 195, 200, wherein it was stated:

"The Customs laws for more than a century had placed the burden of proof upon the claimant, provided that probable cause of seizure be first shown by the libelant. By the 71st section of the Duty-Collection Act of 1799, Chap. 128, the onus probandi to establish the innocence of the property is thrown upon the claimant in all cases where probable cause is shown for the seizure and prosecution."

The only argument presented by the appellant is that it is improper to establish probable cause by the use of evidence that is properly classified as double and triple hearsay. No cases were cited by appellant, and the trial court allowed such...