United States v. ONE 1967 BUICK RIVIERA, 2-DOOR
| Decision Date | 01 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 25932.,25932. |
| Citation | 439 F.2d 92 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONE 1967 BUICK RIVIERA, 2-DOOR Motor and Serial No. 4948774916784, California License No. UJU-023, its tools and appurtenances, Raul Ruiz, Claimant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John S. Lane, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, Cal., for claimant-appellee.
Before CARTER, WRIGHT and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
The government appeals from a judgment of non-forfeiture under 49 U.S.C. § 781 et seq. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 781 et seq., an action for forfeiture is an in rem proceeding against the vehicle. Forfeiture will be declared upon a showing of probable cause that it was involved in a violation of narcotic laws unless the claimant proves his right thereto. United States v. Andrade, 181 F.2d 42, 45 (9th Cir. 1950).
Claimant offered no evidence in the district court. Therefore, we must determine if there was probable cause for institution of the forfeiture action. See United States v. One 1950 Chevrolet 4-Door Sedan, 215 F.2d 482, 483 (10th Cir. 1954).
Probable cause for forfeiture exists if there is evidence sufficient to warrant the reasonable belief that a vehicle was used in violation of § 781. In re One 1957 Buick Roadmaster Convertible, 262 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1958); Ted's Motors v. United States, 217 F.2d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1954); See also Burge v. United States, 342 F.2d 408, 414 (9th Cir. 1965); United States v. Andrade, supra, 181 F.2d at 45; Drummond v. United States, 350 F.2d 983, 988 (8th Cir. 1965).
A review of the record discloses that the United States established the following facts. Paul Ruiz, son of the claimant, and Erlinda Roldan were observed by sheriff's deputies as they approached the libeled Buick on a street in East Los Angeles. The deputies noted that Roldan was staggering as though intoxicated. They saw Paul Ruiz help Roldan into the car, walk around to the driver's side, and prepare to enter.
When Ruiz observed the approaching officers, he reached across the seat to Roldan and then walked rapidly away. Roldan then exited and threw a white object under the car which, when retrieved by a deputy, proved to be a packet of heroin.
In response to questioning, Roldan stated that she did not know what the object was, but Ruiz had given it to her and told her to get rid of it. Ruiz...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. One (1) Liberian Refrigerator Vessel
... 447 F. Supp. 1053 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, ... ONE (1) ... United States v. One 1967 Riviera, 439 F.2d 92 (9th Cir. 1971); United ... ...
-
United States v. ONE 1971 CHEVROLET CORVETTE, ETC.
...the basic nature of a forfeiture proceeding which is considered an in rem action against the vehicle. United States v. One 1967 Buick Riviera, 439 F.2d 92 (9th Cir. 1971). The forfeiture provisions are concerned primarily with possession, not title or ownership of a vehicle. It has been sta......
-
U.S. v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 450 SEL, VIN 11603302064538
...contraband. United States v. One 56-Foot Motor Yacht Named Tahuna, 702 F.2d 1276, 1282 (9th Cir.1983); United States v. One 1967 Buick Riviera, 439 F.2d 92 (9th Cir.1971). Once probable cause is established, the burden of proof shifts to the claimant to establish that the vehicle is not sub......
-
U.S. v. One Clipper Bow Ketch NISKU
...1955); United States v. One 1971 Porsche Coupe Automobile, 364 F.Supp. 745, 748-49 (E.D.Pa.1973). See also United States v. One 1967 Buick Riviera, 439 F.2d 92 (9th Cir. 1971). 6 These cases have all held that the sweeping statutory language clearly requires forfeiture where any contraband ......