United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls

Last updated
United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls
Wisconsin-eastern.png
Court United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Full case nameUnited States of America v. An Article of Hazardous Substance Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls
DecidedMay 21, 1976 (1976-05-21)
Citation(s)413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisc. 1976)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Robert W. Warren

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, 413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisc. 1976), is a 1976 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin decision regarding a requested order from the United States government to seize and destroy a shipment of approximately 50,000 sets of clacker balls under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act because children could hit themselves with the balls. [1] [2]

Contents

The form of the styling of this case—the defendant being an object, rather than a legal person—is because this is a jurisdiction in rem (power over objects) case, rather than the more familiar in personam (over persons) case.

Background

In 1974 in Mequon, Wisconsin, the United States Marshals Service seized a shipment of clacker balls—toys comprising two hard acrylic balls connected by a piece of string—from a dock and published a public notice of the seizure in a local newspaper. Ace Novelty Company in Seattle, Washington, declared an interest in the shipment and filed a complaint against forfeiture. The complaint was that the shipment was not a banned hazard as defined by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). [1]

Litigation

Clacker balls (not necessarily of the style of those in this case) Kliklak 01.jpg
Clacker balls (not necessarily of the style of those in this case)

The claimant initially stated that the case was titled incorrectly as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission had not been named on the caption. The court dismissed this as without merit, pointing out that Section 9 of the FHSA stated that all proceedings regarding enforcement would be done in the name of the United States. [1]

The claimant then stated that the law had been applied unconstitutionally by breaching the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the right of "due powers [ sic ]". [1] The judge stated that he was unsure of the intent of this defense as it was not initially filed in the summary judgement and thus the court was unable to make a ruling on it. [1]

The United States' counsel stated that clacker balls were hazardous under section 2 of FHSA, as clarified by regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 16 C.F.R. § 1500.18(a). The claimant argued that they were not hazardous under FHSA and that there was an exemption made for clacker balls under 16 C.F.R. § 1500.86(a)(5). The court then made the judgment that the United States had the right to seize the shipment under section 15 of FHSA as mechanical hazards and might cause a risk of injury if used by children, that 16 C.F.R. § 1500.86(a)(5) merely provided the opportunity to the claimant to prove that the toy was not hazardous (which was not done), and therefore the exemption from FHSA did not exist. The court then ruled that there was no legal issue and granted the United States the seizure and destruction order for the shipment. [1]

Legacy

Because of the title, it has been viewed as an amusing case [3] [4] and has notoriety in American legal circles for suggesting that the United States sued cardboard boxes with clacker balls. [5] It was one of three cases mentioned in the television show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver 's civil forfeiture episode, alongside United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency [6] and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins . [7] It also set a precedent that clackers were classed as hazardous, [8] and is cited in cases regarding the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. [9] It has been opined by legal editors that this case could be used as precedent if other toys were to be classed as illegal. [2]

Related Research Articles

Confiscation is a legal form of seizure by a government or other public authority. The word is also used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property as punishment or in enforcement of the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Analogue Act</span>

The Federal Analogue Act, 21 U.S.C. § 813, is a section of the United States Controlled Substances Act passed in 1986 which allows any chemical "substantially similar" to a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II to be treated as if it were listed in Schedule I, but only if intended for human consumption. These similar substances are often called designer drugs. The law's broad reach has been used to successfully prosecute possession of chemicals openly sold as dietary supplements and naturally contained in foods. The law's constitutionality has been questioned by now Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clackers</span> Toy consisting of two balls on a string

Clackers were toys popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

In rem jurisdiction is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property.

Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the government had failed to show a compelling interest in prosecuting religious adherents for drinking a sacramental tea containing a Schedule I controlled substance. After the federal government seized its sacramental tea, the União do Vegetal (UDV), the New Mexican branch of a Brazilian church that imbibes ayahuasca in its services, sued, claiming the seizure was illegal, and sought to ensure future importation of the tea for religious use. The church won a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, which was affirmed on appeal.

In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as California that recognize a medical use for marijuana. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was represented by Gerald Uelmen.

<i>United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency</i> 2006 US federal court case

United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 458 F.3d 822, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that was handed down on August 18, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965), was a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1965. The Court ruled that civil forfeiture could not apply where the evidence used to invoke the forfeiture was obtained illegally.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Murphy III</span> American judge

Stephen Joseph Murphy III is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

<i>Nitke v. Gonzales</i> American legal case

Nitke v. Gonzalez, 413 F.Supp.2d 262 was a United States District Court for the Southern District of New York case regarding obscene materials published online. The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the obscenity provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). She claimed that it was overbroad when applied in the context of the Internet because certain contents deemed lawful in some communities and unlawful in others will be restricted due to the open access of the Internet. The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the obscenity provision of the CDA. The court concluded that insufficient evidence was presented to show there was substantial variation in community standards, as applied in the "Miller test", and to show how much protected speech would actually be impaired because of these differences. The relief sought was denied, and the court ruled for the defendant. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed this ruling without comment.

<i>Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki</i> American legal case

Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266, is an important precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the litigation of aboriginal title in the United States. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005), a divided panel held that the equitable doctrine of laches bars all tribal land claims sounding in ejectment or trespass, for both tribal plaintiffs and the federal government as plaintiff-intervenor.

United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (1971), is a United States Supreme Court decision in an in rem case on procedures following the seizure of imported obscene material. A 6–3 court held that the federal statute governing the seizures was not in violation of the First Amendment as long as the government began forfeiture proceedings within 14 days of the seizure.

United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973), was an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court that considered the question of whether the First Amendment required that citizens be allowed to import obscene material for their personal and private use at home, which was already held to be protected several years earlier. By a 5–4 margin, the Court held that it did not.

Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964), is an in rem United States Supreme Court decision on First Amendment questions relating to the forfeiture of obscene material. By a 7–2 margin, the Court held that a seizure of the books was unconstitutional, since no hearing had been held on whether the books were obscene, and it reversed a Kansas Supreme Court decision that upheld the seizure.

Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961), full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials. The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler. It held that both Missouri's procedures for the seizure of allegedly obscene material and the execution of the warrant itself violated the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments' prohibitions on search and seizure without due process. Those violations, in turn, threatened the rights protected by the First Amendment.

<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">Civil forfeiture in the United States</span> Aspect of U.S. law enforcement

In the United States, civil forfeiture is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from people who are suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing. While civil procedure, as opposed to criminal procedure, generally involves a dispute between two private citizens, civil forfeiture involves a dispute between law enforcement and property such as a pile of cash or a house or a boat, such that the thing is suspected of being involved in a crime. To get back the seized property, owners must prove it was not involved in criminal activity. Sometimes it can mean a threat to seize property as well as the act of seizure itself. Civil forfeiture is not considered to be an example of a criminal justice financial obligation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act</span>

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act is a United States Act of Congress that became federal law in 1983. The CCPIA implemented the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. It restricts the importation of some archaeological and ethnological materials into the United States from other State Parties to the Convention.

Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) 191 Neb. 462, 215 N.W.2d 849 (1974) is a Nebraska Supreme Court civil forfeiture case. It was brought by the American state of Nebraska to seize a Rambler Gremlin on the sole grounds it was transporting illegal marijuana. The owner appealed against the forfeiture decision on the grounds of a claimed lack of due process. The court ruled 4–2 and sustained the confiscation as lawful.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, 413F. Supp.1281 (D. Wisc.1976).
  2. 1 2 "Combatting the Clack Epidemic" (PDF). Per Curiam. p. 4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-03-21. Retrieved 2014-03-20.
  3. ↑ Cory Doctorow (2009-12-15). "Comical legal case names". Boing Boing. Archived from the original on 2014-03-20. Retrieved 2014-03-20.
  4. ↑ Higgins, Chris (2014-11-11). "11 Legal Cases with Crazy Names". Mental Floss. Archived from the original on 2017-09-14. Retrieved 2017-09-14.
  5. ↑ "Saying it with style". Texas Bar Journal. February 2011. Archived from the original on 2013-10-22. Retrieved 2014-03-20.
  6. ↑ United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency , 458F.3d822 (8th Cir.2006).
  7. ↑ United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins , 520F.3d976 (9th Cir.2008).
  8. ↑ United States v. Articles of Hazardous Substance, 444F. Supp.1260 (M.D.N.C.1978).
  9. ↑ Riegel Textile Corp. v. Celanese Corp., 493F. Supp.511 (S.D.N.Y.1980).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.