DiGiacomo v. United States

• Decision Date: 10 August 1972
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 4413.
• Citation: 346 F. Supp. 1009
• Parties: Anthony P. DiGIACOMO and Ann M. DiGiacomo, his wife, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

346 F. Supp. 1009

Anthony P. DiGIACOMO and Ann M. DiGiacomo, his wife, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

Civ. A. No. 4413.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

August 10, 1972.

Bernard Balick, Aerenson, Balick & Balick, Wilmington, Del., for petitioners.

Norman Levine, U. S. Atty., and Richard D. Levin, Asst. U. S. Atty., D. Del., for respondent.

OPINION

LAYTON, District Judge.

The United States, by Complaint filed on July 19, 1972, has seized certain real property of Anthony DiGiacomo and his wife in Wilmington, Delaware.¹ The seizure was made pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 1955(d) and certain procedures authorized for seizures in matters relating to forfeitures under the customs laws and in the case of property with a value in excess of $2,500 in accordance with seizures and sales of property, such as vessels, under the practice in admiralty.

"(d) Any property, including money, used in violation of the provisions of this section may be seized and forfeited to the United States. All provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary, and judicial forfeiture procedures, and condemnation of vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage for violation of the customs laws; the disposition of such vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage or the proceeds from such sale; the remission or mitigation of such forfeitures; and the compromise of claims and the award of compensation to informers in respect of such forfeitures shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred or alleged to have been incurred under the provisions of this section, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with such provisions."

The complaint shows that the seizure of the real property in question was based upon alleged violations by defendant, Anthony DiGiacomo, of gambling laws and that he has been arrested and indicted for such offense, although no trial has been held.

Pursuant to the aforesaid statutes and regulations² governing seizures and forfeitures of personal property for violation of the United States Customs laws, the United States Marshal has seized the premises, posted a forfeiture notice on the door, and the Court is advised that petitioner, DiGiacomo, has been dispossessed not only of the use of the downstairs portion of the premises where he conducts his alleged (but not proved) gambling business but also his son and daughter-in-law, who lease and live in the upstairs portion of the premises, have been evicted therefrom.

The United States having taken no action for in excess of two months since the seizure of petitioners' premises, petitioners have filed an application for a restraining order, temporary injunction and permanent injunction enjoining the United States from denying to petitioners the use and control of the premises.

As far as can be ascertained this is a case of first instance and because of the government's alleged wrongful interference with the owners' possessions, this question should be decided without delay.

Petitioners base their application upon three grounds, viz. (1) that a hearing on their application for a remission would disclose their innocence of any participation in the crime charged thus entitling them to the return of their real property. This theory seems somewhat misplaced because by the time a remission hearing could be held and decided the property would have been long since sold leaving nothing but the proceeds of the sale to litigate over.

Secondly, petitioners say seizures and forfeitures such as these, without notice of, and the right to, a hearing are violative of the petitioners' Fifth Amendment rights. While I cannot accept this contention, the argument has much merit. Forfeitures, although said to be in the public policy, are a harsh and violent procedure, at least until now sanctioning the seizure and sale of property without any notice of, or the right to, a prior hearing. It is based upon the almost medieval theory of Deodant³—the thing or rem is guilty of the act—and incidentally does not even pay lip service to the principle of presumption of innocence.⁴ It results frequently that the only remedy is a long drawn out and often unsuccessful application for remission. It has been criticized in at least two Supreme Court decisions⁵ but in neither was it found unconstitutional. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this exceptional procedure is beginning to run a collision course with a number of recent Supreme Court cases⁶ and hopefully in the near future will be fully reexamined by that Court. However, as of this writing, the forfeiture remedy is still sanctioned by the most recent cases. United States v. One 1967 Ford Mustang, 457 F.2d 931, 9th Cir. March 21, 1972.

Petitioners' third argument, and in my judgment a sound one, is that section 1955(d) never intended the seizure and forfeiture of real property. The government points to the language of the Act "any property" and with superficial plausibility says this must include all sorts of property, personal and real, but there are too many signs to the contrary to convince me.

Whether the words "any property" as used in section 1955(d) in fact include real property presents a serious question of statutory interpretation. Even conceding, as I do, that the rule of reasonable, rather than strict, construction is applicable here, United States v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1, 12, 10 S.Ct. 244, 33 L.Ed. 555, it is doubtful that the Congress intended to include real property within the purview of section 1955(d). The legislative history underlying the Act throws no light on the matter.

However, if Congress had intended to include real property in the forfeiture provisions it could easily have said so. It did not. Secondly, forfeiture proceedings are governed by the procedures prescribed for seizures under the customs laws and, in the case of property whose value exceeds $5,000, for the sale of vessels under...