U.S. v. One (1) 1972 Wood, 19 Foot Custom Boat, FL 8443AY
| Citation | 501 F.2d 1327 |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1294,74-1294 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE (1) 1972 WOOD, 19 FOOT CUSTOM BOAT, FL 8443AY, and One (1) 1966 Lugg BoatTrailer, 1973 Florida Tag Number IV 7812, Defendant-Appellant, and Paul M.Doyon, Claimant-Appellant. Summary Calendar.* *Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, PartI. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
William P. Cagney, III, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U.S. Atty., Raymond R. Ray, and C. Wesley G. Currier, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a proceeding brought by the United States to enforce forfeiture of a boat and trailer used to transport marijuana. The innocent owner had rented the boat to a third party, Antunovich. Antunovich was arrested and when he was taken into custody, the boat contained five burlap bags of marijuana. After an investigation, the customs service agreed to remit the boat to its owner, Doyon, upon the payment of the storage charges of approximately $400. Doyon refused to pay, and forfeiture proceedings were instituted. After trial, the boat and trailer were ordered forfeited to the United States. We affirm.
Appellant alleges that the delay between the seizure of the boat in August 1972, and the institution of forfeiture proceedings in June 1973, resulted in a denial of due process. The statutes involved, 19 U.S.C. 1602, 1603, and 1604, require the customs officer to report immediately any seizure to his district office, and the U.S. Attorney to forthwith institute proceedings where necessary. The Customs investigation and administrative processing was not completed until April 10, 1973. At that time appellant was informed he would have to pay the storage charges in order to obtain his boat. He negotiated with the department as to the storage charges for an unspecified time, but at least until May. The case was then turned over to the U.S. Attorney who instituted suit on June 1, 1973. In these circumstances, the actions of the U.S. Attorney were in compliance with the statute.
Appellant also contends that he was deprived of his property without due process of law, without just compensation, and without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, in violation of the 5th Amendment. These points have been raised and rejected in numerous forfeiture cases. In Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974), the Supreme Court upheld a Puerto Rico statute which provided for seizure without notice and forfeiture to the Commonwealth of vessels used to transport controlled substances, including marijuana. As in the case at hand, the appellant in Calero-Toledo was an innocent lessor and was not involved in the criminal enterprise. The Court noted that 'preseizure notice and hearing might frustrate the interests served by the statutes, since the property seized . . . will often be of a sort that could be removed to another jurisdiction, destroyed or concealed, if advance warning of confiscation were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kosak v. United States
...Third Circuit in this case. United States v. One (1) Douglas A-26B Aircraft, 662 F.2d 1372 (CA11 1981); United States v. One (1) 1972 Wood, 19 Foot Custom Boat, 501 F.2d 1327 (CA5 1974). In Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U.S. 460, 462 n. 3, 100 S.Ct. 647, 649 n. 3, 62 L.Ed.2d 61......
-
Vu v. Meese
...in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c) and suit for negligence and wrongful act is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c); United States v. One 1972 Wood 19 Ft. Custom Boat, 501 F.2d 1327 (5th Cir.1974) 28 U.S.C. § 2680 specifically prohibits the bringing of any claim arising from the detention of any goods or m......
-
Ivers v. U.S.
...v. One 1970 Ford Pickup, 564 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1977); Lee v. Thornton, 538 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. One (1) 1972 Wood, 19 Foot Custom Boat, 501 F.2d 1327 (5th Cir. 1974); States Marine Lines, Inc. v. Shultz, 498 F.2d 1146 (4th Cir. 1974); Sarkisian v. United States, 472 F.2......
-
Walker v. United States
...of due process.3 The cases cited by the Government are not particularly helpful to the inquiry. See United States v. One (1) 1972 Wood, 19 Foot Custom Boat, 501 F.2d 1327 (5th Cir.); United States v. 1500 Cases, More or Less, 249 F.2d 382 (7th Cir.); S. Schonfeld Co., Inc. v. SS Akra Tenaro......
-
State and Federal Forfeiture of Property Used in Criminal Activity
...et seq. 22. C.R.S. 1973, § 16-13-303(2). 23. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4)(B). 24. U.S. v. One 1972 Wood, 19 Foot Custom Boat, FL 8443AY, 501 F.2d 1327 (5th Cir. 1974); Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1973). 25. U.S. v. One 1973 Buick Riviera Automobile, 560 F.2d 897 (8th ......