United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, No. 26269.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 453 F.2d 396 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE 1967 CADILLAC EL DORADO, SERIAL NO. H7135768, LICENSE NO. TVM 155, its tools and appurtenances, Leonar Dixon, real party in interest, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 26269. |
| Decision Date | 27 December 1971 |
453 F.2d 396 (1971)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ONE 1967 CADILLAC EL DORADO, SERIAL NO. H7135768, LICENSE NO. TVM 155, its tools and appurtenances, Leonar Dixon, real party in interest, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 26269.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
December 27, 1971.
Jonathan K. Golden (argued), Burton Marks, of Marks, Sherman & London, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.
Larry L. Dier, Asst. U.S. Atty., (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty. & Chief, Civil Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Cadillac was forfeited on the ground that it had been used to facilitate transportation of illegally imported marihuana (19 U.S.C. § 1595a). The owner of the Cadillac had been tried and acquitted of the charge of transporting or facilitating the transportation of marihuana before the forfeiture proceeding had been commenced. (21 U.S.C. § 176a.) The facts upon which the charges against the owner were made were the same as those upon which the forfeiture proceeding depended.
In Coffey v. United States (1886) 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 cited with approval in Ashe v. Swenson (1970) 397 U.S. 436, 443 n. 7, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469, the Supreme Court held that a prior judgment of acquittal of the owner of property forecloses a proceeding to forfeit that property when the operative facts of both the criminal and the forfeiture proceedings are the same. The conclusion follows from the combined impact of collateral estoppel and the double jeopardy clause. (See also United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency (1971) 401 U.S. 715, 721-722, 91 S.Ct. 1041, 28 L.Ed.2d 434; McKeehan v. United States (6th Cir.1971) 438 F.2d 739, 746-747.)
The judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint.
--------
Notes:
* Hon. Fred M. Taylor, United States District Court Judge, Boise, Idaho, sitting by designation.
--------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, Serial No. 11602012072193, No. Q55-103
...the event of an acquittal. Cf. Coffey v. U. S., 116 U.S. 436, 442-43, 6 S.Ct. 437, 440, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886); U. S. v. One 1967 Cadillac, 453 F.2d 396 (C.A. 9, 5 This rule, now embodied in 19 U.S.C. 1615, has been the law at least since the Act of July 31, 1789, 1 St. 29, 43-44. 6 Congress c......
-
Standlee v. Rhay, No. C-75-18.
...to Ashe v. Swenson, supra, were recently recognized by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971). In that case the Government had instituted forfeiture proceedings against an automobile allegedly used to transport mariju......
-
Standlee v. Rhay, No. 76-1297
...forfeiture proceedings instigated subsequent to acquittals in criminal proceedings. In United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9 Cir. 1971), this court held that the operative facts of a forfeiture proceeding were the same as those in a prior criminal proceeding so that ......
-
Group Director, GGD, B-198049
...safeguards, and procedures usually associated with criminal prosecutions under CCE and rico. See United States v. One cadillac EL dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. United states coin & currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971); one 1958 plymouth sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 ......
-
U.S. v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, Serial No. 11602012072193, No. Q55-103
...the event of an acquittal. Cf. Coffey v. U. S., 116 U.S. 436, 442-43, 6 S.Ct. 437, 440, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886); U. S. v. One 1967 Cadillac, 453 F.2d 396 (C.A. 9, 5 This rule, now embodied in 19 U.S.C. 1615, has been the law at least since the Act of July 31, 1789, 1 St. 29, 43-44. 6 Congress c......
-
Standlee v. Rhay, No. C-75-18.
...to Ashe v. Swenson, supra, were recently recognized by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971). In that case the Government had instituted forfeiture proceedings against an automobile allegedly used to transport mariju......
-
Standlee v. Rhay, No. 76-1297
...forfeiture proceedings instigated subsequent to acquittals in criminal proceedings. In United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9 Cir. 1971), this court held that the operative facts of a forfeiture proceeding were the same as those in a prior criminal proceeding so that ......
-
Group Director, GGD, B-198049
...safeguards, and procedures usually associated with criminal prosecutions under CCE and rico. See United States v. One cadillac EL dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. United states coin & currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971); one 1958 plymouth sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 ......