Robinson v. Hanrahan 6918
| Decision Date | 24 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71,71 |
| Citation | 93 S.Ct. 30,409 U.S. 38,34 L.Ed.2d 47 |
| Parties | Woodie ROBINSON v. Edward V. HANRAHAN, States Attorney of Cook County. - 6918 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On June 16, 1970, appellant was arrested on a charge of armed robbery and, immediately thereafter, the State of Illinois instituted forfeiture proceedings against appellant's automobile pursuant to the Illinois vehicle forfeiture statute, Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, § 36—1 et seq. (1969). Appellant was held in custody in the Cook County jail from June 16, 1970, to October 7, 1970, awaiting trial. Nevertheless, the State mailed notice of the pending forfeiture proceedings, not to the jail facility, but to appellant's home address as listed in the records of the Secretary of State.1 It is undisputed that ap- pellant, who remained in custody throughout the forfeiture proceedings, did not receive such notice until his release.2 After an ex parte hearing on August 19, 1970, the circuit court of Cook County ordered the forfeiture and sale of appellant's vehicle.
Upon learning of the forfeiture after his release, appellant filed a motion for rehearing, requesting that the order of forfeiture be set aside because the manner of notice did not comport with the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The circuit court of Cook County denied the motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Illinois, three justices dissenting, held that, in light of the in rem nature of the proceedings, substituted service as utilized by the State did not deny appellant due process of law. People ex rel. Hanrahan v. One 1965 Oldsmobile, 52 Ill.2d 37, 284 N.E.2d 646 (1972). We cannot agree.
In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), after commenting on the vagueness of the classifications 'in rem or more indefinitely quasi in rem, or more vaguely still, 'in the nature of a proceeding in rem", this Court held that 'the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution do not depend upon a classification for which the standards are so elusive and confused generally and which, being primarily for state courts to define, may and do vary from state to state.' Id., at 312, 70 S.Ct., at 656. 'An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.' Id., at 314, 70 S.Ct., at 657. More specifically, Mullane held that notice by publication is not sufficient with respect to an individual whose name and address are known or easily ascertainable. Similarly, in Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141, 76 S.Ct. 724, 100 L.Ed. 1021 (1956), we held that, in the context of a foreclosure action by the town, notice by mailing, posting, and publication was inadequate where the individual involved was known by the town to be an incompetent without the protection of a guardian. See also ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. L. A. Cnty. Waterworks Dist. No. 40 (In re Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases)
...generally Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 312–313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 ; Robinson v. Hanrahan (1972) 409 U.S. 38, 39–40, 93 S.Ct. 30, 34 L.Ed.2d 47 [in rem nature of proceeding does not obviate due process requirements that party be given notice " ‘reasonably ......
-
Lee v. Thornton
...to provide notice "reasonably calculated" to apprise an interested party of the forfeiture proceedings. Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 93 S.Ct. 30, 34 L.Ed.2d 47 (1972). Calero-Toledo merely held that notice and hearing could be postponed until after the seizure. The Court did not decid......
-
U.S. v. $184,505.01 in U.S. Currency
...forfeiture proceedings against the $14K and the statues. Relying primarily on the Supreme Court's decision in Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 93 S.Ct. 30, 34 L.Ed.2d 47 (1972), McGlory argues that the Due Process Clause required that the government serve him with notice of the forfeiture......
-
Montville Tp. v. Block 69, Lot 10
...impinge directly on governmental interests, this distinction can no longer be considered tenable. See, e. g., Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 93 S.Ct. 30, 34 L.Ed.2d 47 (1972) (notice by certified mail to automobile owner's home violated due process in forfeiture proceedings where the st......
-
4 Initiation of Civil Forfeiture Proceedings
...(See Supplemental Rule G(4)(b)(iii)(A); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950); Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 40 (1972).) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation or posting on an official government forfeiture Internet site is also required. See......
-
C. Jordan Myers, Learning to Live With Jones v. Flowers: a "new Wrinkle" for an Old Standard
...of whether a statutory scheme is reasonably calculated to provide notice in the ordinary case." Id. at 230 (citing Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 40 (1972); Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141, 146-47 (1956)). 118 Flowers, 547 U.S. at 229. The Court gave the example of a Commissioner ......
-
The logical conclusion to reasonably calculated notice: actual notice: Jones v. Flowers.
...is promptly returned 'unclaimed', regardless of whether the property owner maintained adequate property"); see also Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 30-31 (1972) (regardless of whether a statute requires a property owner to maintain updated records, the method of notice employed by the st......