United States v. ONE 1977 PONTIAC GRAND PRIX, VIN 2J5747P137057
| Decision Date | 31 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78 C 3521.,78 C 3521. |
| Citation | 483 F. Supp. 48 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ONE 1977 PONTIAC GRAND PRIX, VIN 2J5747P137057, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Thomas P. Sullivan, U. S. Atty., and Robert T. Grueneberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., George W. Calhoun, Chief Sp. Litigation Section, Criminal Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Eric E. Graham, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
The government has moved for summary judgment in this action to forfeit a 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881. Under this statute:
The question before the court is whether there exist any material issues of fact as to whether the vehicle in question was used to facilitate a heroin transaction. See United States v. One 1976 Buick Skylark, 453 F.Supp. 639 (D.Colo.1978); United States v. One 1973 Dodge Van, 416 F.Supp. 43 (E.D. Mich.1976).
The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, are that on May 9, 1978, two informants of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) arranged to meet Mr. Oscar Villegas, the vehicle's owner, in front of Pepe's Tacos, a restaurant. Finding it closed, they decided to go to a McDonald's restaurant, and Villegas drove there in the Pontiac. After this meeting, one of the informants turned over a package of heroin to a DEA agent. The defendant does not dispute these allegations. The plaintiff has submitted affidavits of the narcotics agents involved attesting to their constant surveillance of the transaction in question. In view of their statements that the car and persons of the two informants were searched before they met Villegas, and that they were watched constantly thereafter, the agents had sufficient grounds to believe that the heroin was transported in the vehicle, at least from Pepe's to McDonald's. There was therefore probable cause to seize the vehicle.
Forfeiture is proper in this case if there was no other means for the heroin to have arrived in the hands of the informants, than to have been transported to the McDonald's in Mr. Villegas' car. Because Mr. Villegas has failed to meet his burden under Federal Rule 56(e) of producing any affidavits or other documents in opposition to them, the government's affidavits must be taken as true. These establish that the informants did not have any heroin before they met Villegas, that Villegas was observed the entire time from when he met the informants to after he left the McDonald's, and that he handed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Manuel
...Clipper Bow Ketch Nisku, 548 F.2d 8 (1 Cir.1977); U.S. v. One 1972 Toyota Mark II, 505 F.2d 1162 (8 Cir.1974); U.S. v. One 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix, 483 F.Supp. 48 (N.D.Ill.1979); U.S. v. One 1977 Lincoln Mark V, Etc., 453 F.Supp. 1388 (D.C.N.Y.1979); U.S. v. One 1973 Jaguar Coupe, 431 F.Sup......
-
US v. 8848 SOUTH COMMERCIAL ST., CHICAGO, ILL.
...United States v. One 1972 Toyota Mark II VIN RT 63016188, 505 F.2d 1162 (8th Cir.1974); United States v. One 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix VIN 2J5747P137057, 483 F.Supp. 48, 49 (N.D.Ill. 1979) (Decker, J.). Thus, Mr. Serratos' acquittal is not relevant in this civil forfeiture 5 The facts set for......
-
U.S. v. Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) U.S. Currency, 84-1062
...because the crime was not in fact committed. See 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law Sections 2-2-209. Also see United States v. One 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix, 483 F.Supp. 48 (N.D.Ill.1979). "The government is entitled to forfeiture even if the conviction is reversed on the grounds of Lasuita appeals.......
-
US v. Property Ident. as 3120 Banneker Dr. NE
...F.2d 8, 10 n. 2. (1st Cir.1977); United States v. One 1972 Toyota Mark II, 505 F.2d 1162 (8th Cir.1974); United States v. One 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix, 483 F.Supp. 48 (N.D. Ill.1979).1 In this case, the government has submitted affidavits that, in pertinent part, are not controverted. Those ......
-
The Double Jeopardy Implications of in Rem Forfeiture of Crime-related Property: the Gradual Realization of a Constitutional Violation
...2. See id. § 881(a)(7) (real property); § 881(a)(4) (vehicles and other conveyances). 3. United States v. One 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix, 483 F. Supp. 48, 49 (N.D. Ill. 4. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 881(b)(4) (West Supp. 1995). 5. See United States v. Doe, 743 F.2d 1033, 1038 (4th Cir. 1984) (stating t......
-
State and Federal Forfeiture of Property Used in Criminal Activity
...One Ring v. U.S., 409 U.S. 232 (1972); One 1977 Lincoln Mark V, supra, note 32. 41. U.S. v. One Pontaic Grand Prix, VIN 2J5747P137057, 483 F.Supp. 48 (N.D. Ill. 1979); U.S. v. One Clipper Bow Ketch Nisku, 548 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1977). 42. U.S. v. One 1976 Buick Skylark, supra, note 25 at 643.......