United States v. $8,850

Last updated
United States v. $8,850
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 28, 1983
Decided May 23, 1983
Full case nameUnited States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in United States Currency
Docket no. 81-1062
Citations461 U.S. 555 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorU.S. v. 8,850 Dollars, 645 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1981).
Holding
On the facts, the Government's 18-month delay in filing a civil proceeding for forfeiture of the currency did not violate the claimant's right to due process of law.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityO'Connor, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
DissentStevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555, is a United States Supreme Court case regarding civil forfeiture and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Contents

Background

On September 10, 1975, Mary Josephine Vasquez and a travel companion landed at Los Angeles International Airport after a short trip to Canada. While going through customs, Vasquez declared that she was not carrying more than $5,000 in currency. However, a customs inspector discovered and seized $8,850 in United States Currency from Vasquez. On September 18, Vasquez was notified by the United States Customs Service that her currency was subject to forfeiture. A week later, Vasquez petitioned for remission or mitigation, claiming that the violation was unintentional. [1]

On October 20, 1975, Special Agent Janet Pompeo [2] was assigned to investigate Vasquez's petition, and interviewed the customs agents who seized Vasquez's money at the airport. By mid-November, Pompeo had made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Vasquez's attorney to arrange an interview. When Pompeo made contact, the attorney said that he was unable to meet at that time, and that he wished to be present during the interview. Around this time, Pompeo had opened a criminal investigation on suspicion that Vasquez was engaged in drug smuggling. Between November 1976 and April 1976, Pompeo contacted various state, federal, and Canadian law enforcement officers to determine whether the currency was part of a narcotics operation. [3]

In January 1976, Vasquez's attorney contacted Pompeo seeking an update on the status of the investigation, and was informed that it was still ongoing. On March 2, 1976, Pompeo contacted Vasquez's attorney and arranged an interview, which took place three days later. On April 26, the attorney again contacted Pompeo seeking an update. By this time, Agent Pompeo had received final reports from the law enforcement agencies, and concluded that there was no evidence that the money was part of a narcotics operation. [4]

Lower court history

District Court

In May 1976, Agent Pompeo submitted a report to the United States Attorney, William D. Keler, recommending prosecution of Vasquez for the reporting violation. After re-interviewing the customs agents and submitting a second report, Keller submitted the case to a grand jury in the Central District of California. On June 15, 1976, the grand jury returned a two-count indictment. Count One charged Vasquez with knowingly and willfully making false statements to a United States Customs officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a felony. Count Two charged Vasquez with knowingly and willfully transporting $8,850 into the United States without filing a report, in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 1058 and 1101, a misdemeanor. The indictment sought forfeiture of the $8,850 as part of the misdemeanor count. [5]

In August 1976, Agent Pompeo requested that the disposition of Vasquez's petition be delayed until the currency was no longer needed as evidence in the criminal trial. On December 24, 1976, Vasquez was convicted on the felony count of making false statements, but acquitted on the misdemeanor count of importing money without filing a report. Shortly after the trial, Vasquez's attorney inquired about whether there would be any delay in acting on the petition. [5]

On March 10, 1977, the Customs Service informed Vasquez that the forfeiture claim had been referred to the United States Attorney. Less than two weeks later, a complaint seeking forfeiture was filed under 31 U.S.C. § 1102 in the Central District of California. In response, Vasquez admitted to the factual allegations, but raised an affirmative defense that the government's delay in processing her petitions violated her right to due process. After a two-day bench trial in January 1978, the District Court found that, under the circumstances, the time that had elapsed was reasonable, and declared the currency forfeited. [6]

Court of Appeals

Vasquez appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments were heard on April 2, 1980, before Circuit Judges Herbert Choy and Arthur Alarcón, and Senior District Judge Gus J. Solomon. On May 22, 1981, it ruled 2–1 in favor of Vasquez. The Court held that the 18-month delay in filing its forfeiture action was unjustified, since such seizures infringe upon property rights. The Court further held that when the necessary elements of the forfeiture were established at the time of the seizure, and when the claimant requests a speedy disposition of the claim, pending administrative or criminal proceedings cannot justify the delay. The Court ordered the dismissal of the government's forfeiture action. The Court's decision created a conflict with decisions in other circuits, where panels had held that pending administrative and criminal proceedings are relevant considerations in determining whether delays in forfeiture proceedings violate the Due Process Clause. The United States petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. [7]

Supreme Court

Oral arguments were heard on January 18, 1983. The case was argued, on behalf of the United States, by Deputy Solicitor General Frey, and, on behalf of Vasquez, by Victor Sherman. On May 23, 1983, the Court held 8–1 in favor of the United States, and reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. Justice O'Connor wrote for the eight-justice majority. Justice Stevens dissented.

Notes

1. ^ Vasquez's felony conviction would later be reversed because court files were left in the jury deliberation room. United States v. Vasquez, 597 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1979).
2. ^ Senior United States District Judge Gus Jerome Solomon for the District Court for the District of Oregon sat by designation.

Related Research Articles

In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons that the filing party or parties believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought that entitles the plaintiff(s) to a remedy. For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that govern civil litigation in United States courts provide that a civil action is commenced with the filing or service of a pleading called a complaint. Civil court rules in states that have incorporated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure use the same term for the same pleading.

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">District attorney</span> State government representative which prosecute criminal offenses in the United States

In the United States, a district attorney (DA), county attorney, county prosecutor, state's attorney, prosecuting attorney, commonwealth's attorney, state attorney or solicitor is the chief prosecutor or chief law enforcement officer representing a U.S. state in a local government area, typically a county or a group of counties. The exact and scope of the office varies by state. Generally, the prosecutor represents the people of the jurisdiction. With the exception of three states, district attorneys are elected, unlike similar roles in other common law jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liberty dollar (private currency)</span> Private currency produced in the United States

The American Liberty Dollar (ALD) was a private currency produced in the United States.

Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it illegal to possess a firearm for individuals previously "convicted in any court" of crimes for which they could have been sentenced to more than one year in prison. The Court ruled, in a five to three decision, that "any court" does not include those in foreign countries. This decision resolved a circuit split on the issue, and reversed the lower ruling of the Third Circuit that the law did apply to foreign convictions.

In the United States, extradition law is a collection of federal laws that regulate extradition, the formal process by which a fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country or state for trial, punishment, or rehabilitation.

<i>Hill v. McDonough</i> 2006 United States Supreme Court case

Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations, rather than under the habeas corpus provisions. Accordingly, that the prisoner had previously sought habeas relief could not bar the present challenge.

United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), is a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense", citing the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. It was the first time the Court struck down the federal government's "aggressive use of forfeiture" and the only time it has held that an imposed fine was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

<i>Lopez v. Gonzales</i> 2006 United States Supreme Court case

Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006), held that an "aggravated felony" includes only conduct punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act, regardless of whether state law classifies such conduct as a felony or a misdemeanor. Under federal law, there are two main consequences of having a prior conviction for an "aggravated felony." One is that, if the convicted person is an alien, he will be deported. The other is that, with respect to certain federal crimes, a prior conviction for an aggravated felony provides a sentencing enhancement. In this case, Lopez had been convicted of conduct that was a felony under South Dakota law but was a misdemeanor under federal law. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this conviction could not serve as a basis for deporting him.

The term aggravated felony was used in the United States immigration law to refer to a broad category of criminal offenses that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings. Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony and removed from the United States "must remain outside of the United States for twenty consecutive years from the deportation date before he or she is eligible to re-enter the United States." The supreme court ruled 5-4 in Sessions v. Dimaya that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague limiting the term.

A criminal defense lawyer is a lawyer specializing in the defense of individuals and companies charged with criminal activity. Some criminal defense lawyers are privately retained, while others are employed by the various jurisdictions with criminal courts for appointment to represent indigent persons; the latter are generally called public defenders. The terminology is imprecise because each jurisdiction may have different practices with various levels of input from country to country. Some jurisdictions use a rotating system of appointments, with judges appointing a private practice attorney or firm for each case.

United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449, was an American federal criminal case in which the U.S. government charged Lori Drew with violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) over her alleged cyberbullying of her 13-year-old neighbor, Megan Meier, who had committed suicide. The jury deadlocked on a felony conspiracy count and acquitted Drew of three felony CFAA violations, but found her guilty of lesser included misdemeanor violations; the judge overturned these convictions in response to a subsequent motion for acquittal by Drew.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States federal probation and supervised release</span> Concept from US criminal law

United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, or in addition to home detention, while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment. Probation and supervised release are both administered by the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System. Federal probation has existed since 1909, while supervised release has only existed since 1987, when it replaced federal parole as a means for imposing supervision following release from prison.

<i>Baker v. Wade</i> U.S. court case on sodomy

Baker v. Wade 563 F.Supp 1121, rev'd 769 F.2nd 289 cert denied 478 US 1022 (1986) is a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the sodomy law of the state of Texas. Plaintiff Donald Baker contended that the law violated his rights to privacy and equal protection. After a victory at trial, an appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and in the wake of its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review it.

<i>United States v. Kilbride</i>

United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240 is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejecting an appeal from two individuals convicted of violating the Can Spam Act and United States obscenity law. The defendants were appealing convictions on 8 counts from the District Court of Arizona for distributing pornographic spam via email. The second count which the defendants were found guilty of involved the falsification of the "From" field of email headers, which is illegal to do multiple times in commercial settings under 18 USC § 1037(a)(3). The case is particularly notable because of the majority opinion on obscenity, in which Judge Fletcher writes an argument endorsing the use of a national community obscenity standard for the internet.

<i>United States v. Cotterman</i> 2013 court case regarding electronic storage devices

United States v. Cotterman,, is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that property, such as a laptop and other electronic storage devices, presented for inspection when entering the United States at the border may not be subject to forensic examination without a reason for suspicion, a holding that weakened the border search exception of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<i>United States v. Vampire Nation</i>

United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, is a 2006 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and asset forfeiture. A three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence of Frederick Banks, a Pittsburgh man, on numerous felony charges resulting from fraudulent schemes carried out over the Internet. The case takes its title, which has been singled out as memorable and included among lists of amusingly titled cases, from one of Banks' aliases, an electronic music group of which he was the sole regular member. He had filed the appeal under that name while representing himself.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 63</span> 2016 California ballot proposition

The 2016 Proposition 63, titled Firearms and Ammunition Sales, is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. It requires a background check and California Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition, prohibits possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines over ten rounds, levies fines for failing to report when guns are stolen or lost, establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons, and requires California Department of Justice's participation in the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban</span> Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

A grant of appellate review is dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG) when a court with discretionary appellate jurisdiction later decides that it should not review the case. Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States occasionally grants a petition of the writ of certiorari, only to later DIG the case.

References

  1. United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555, 558-59.
  2. U.S. v. 8,850 Dollars, 645 F.2d 836, 837.
  3. $8,850, 461 U.S., at 559.
  4. $8,850, 461 U.S., at 559-60.
  5. 1 2 $8,850, 461 U.S., at 560.
  6. $8,850, 461 U.S., at 560-61.
  7. $8,850, 461 U.S., at 561-62.