U.S. v. One (1) 1987 Ford Aerostar Minivan Vin: 1FTVA14V9H2B21274, 88-2091

Citation880 F.2d 415
Decision Date28 July 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-2091,88-2091
PartiesUnpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE (1) 1987 FORD AEROSTAR MINIVAN VIN: 1FTVA14V9H2B21274; Defendant, Theopolis Dupin, Jr., Claimant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

Before MERRITT and DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judges and BAILEY BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

This pro se claimant appeals the district court judgment of forfeiture entered against his 1987 Aerostar mini-van. The appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon consideration of the record and the briefs, the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

The in rem forfeiture proceeding was filed against the mini-van for its alleged use to transport an unregistered firearm in violation of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 781. Following a bench trial, the district court found that the van was used to transport a sawed-off shotgun and ordered forfeiture pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sec. 782.

Upon review we conclude that the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. See United States v. One (1) 1966 Beechcraft Baron, No. N242BS, 788 F.2d 384, 388 (6th Cir.1986).

Claimant's argument that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of showing probable cause is without merit. Probable cause to support forfeiture may be established by hearsay evidence or by circumstantial evidence. United States v. 1982 Yukon Delta Houseboat, 774 F.2d 1432, 1434 (9th Cir.1985) (circumstantial evidence); United States v. One 56-foot Motor Yacht Named the Tahuna, 702 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1983) (hearsay evidence).

Next, the district court did not err by shifting the burden of proof to claimant. Once the government presents sufficient evidence to show probable cause for the forfeiture, claimant must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property was not subject to forfeiture. United States v. One (1) 1966 Beechcraft Baron, 788 F.2d at 387.

Third, claimant's challenge to the constitutionality of the forfeiture statute was not raised in the district court and lacks merit in any event. See, e.g., United States v. One 1970 Pontiac GTO, 2-Door Hardtop, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT