Source: https://www.vezinalaw.com/ii-background.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:16:20+00:00

Document:
Historically, liable property has been classified as "guilty," "hostile," or "indebted" property, depending on the manner by which the property becomes liable. [FN20] "Guilty" property is that which is utilized in an act that contravenes the law, "hostile" property is that which "is owned or controlled by an enemy of war," [FN21] and "indebted" property is that which is designated as collateral for a defaulted debt. [FN22] This Article concerns the forfeiture of property connected with illegal activity and, thus, which traditionally would be considered guilty property.
*1616 In rem proceedings and, in particular, the civil forfeiture proceedings that are provided by modern civil forfeiture statutes, put such concerns to rest. Modern forfeiture statutes allow the government to proceed against guilty property, while requiring that public or direct notice be given of the government's intent to seek the forfeiture of such property. [FN29] Such notice requirements enable persons who claim interests in the property at issue to defend their interests against the government action. [FN30] Thus, modern in rem proceedings strike a balance between the government's right to enforce its laws and owners' rights to protect their interests in items that have been used or obtained in violation of the law.
[FN18]. United States v. Eight (8) Rhodesian Stone Statues, 449 F.Supp. 193, 195 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 1978).
[FN19]. See Matthew P. Harrington, Rethinking in Rem: The Supreme Court's New (and Misguided) Approach to Civil Forfeiture, 12 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 281, 285 (1994).
[FN23]. Accordingly, jurisdiction rests on the court's power to reach the property, not the owner. See The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 114 (1827).
[FN24]. See Gelston v. Hoyt, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 318 (1818); Caldwell v. United States, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 366, 381 (1850). Thus, forfeiture proceedings are analogous to proceedings to quiet title to property, in that both proceedings merely seek judicial recognition of a preexisting right.
[FN25]. See generally Comment, Tempering the Relation-Back Doctrine: A More Reasonable Approach to Civil Forfeiture in Drug Cases, 76 Va. L. Rev. 165, 175-77 (1990); see also 21 U.S.C.A. s 881(h) (West 1995) (codifying the relation-back doctrine).
[FN26]. See infra note 80 and accompanying text.
[FN27]. See infra note 80 and accompanying text.
[FN28]. Civil forfeiture proceedings are supposed to quiet title to the property as against the entire world. See The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) at 114-15.
[FN29]. See infra notes 70-71 and accompanying text.
[FN30]. See infra notes 70-71 and accompanying text.
[FN31]. Virtually all commentators trace forfeiture to the biblical excerpt "when an ox gores a man that he [shall] die, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten." Exodus 21:29. See, e.g., George C. Pratt & William B. Petersen, Civil Forfeiture in the Second Circuit, 65 St. John's L. Rev. 653, 654 (1991). The excerpt stood for the proposition that individuals must not receive a benefit from an offending, guilty animal. Id. Presumably, the illegal obtainment or use of property renders the property "guilty," like the Ox's flesh, and thus, no benefits may be derived from it.
[FN32]. Austin, 113 S. Ct. at 2806-07.
[FN34]. See Jacob J. Finkelstein, The Goring Ox: Some Historical Perspectives on Deodand, Forfeitures, Wrongful Death and the Western Notion of Sovereignty, 46 Temp. L.Q. 169, 185 (1973). Curiously, the offending object itself was not forfeited to the English Crown. Rather, the King assessed the value of such an object, which value was then owed to the Crown as the forfeiture. Id.
[FN36]. Austin, 113 S. Ct. at 2806.
[FN38]. Id. "These forfeitures ... were justified on the ground that property was a right derived from society which one lost by violating society's laws." Id. at 2807.
Id. (citing Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 682 (1974) (quoting C.J. Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 U.S. 133, 139 (1943)).
[FN43]. See Calero-Toledo, 416 U.S. at 683 n.21-22. Historians believe that the British practice of seizing cargo and vessels for violations of the customs laws was one of the factors that led to the American revolution. See United States v. 92 Buena Vista Ave., 113 S. Ct. 1126, 1131-32 (1993). Curiously, however, the First United States Congress replicated the British practice.
[FN44]. For example, in 1890, Congress enacted the Customs Administrative Act, which allowed, inter alia, the forfeiture of property for failure to declare it upon entry into the country. Act of June 10, 1890, ch. 407, s 6, 26 Stat. 131, 134.
[FN45]. Pub. L. No. 91-513, s 511, 84 Stat. 1236, 1276-78 (1970) (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C.A. s 881 (West 1981 & Supp. 1995)).
[FN46]. See, e.g., In re Four Packages Cut Diamonds, 255 F. 314, 317 (2d Cir. 1918), modified, 256 F. 305 (2d Cir. 1919). In this sense, civil forfeiture proceedings constitute a form of strict liability.
[FN47]. While the Drug Control Act was initially intended to regulate narcotics trafficking, it now provides a statutory basis for the forfeiture of property that is connected with other crimes, including gambling, motor vehicle theft, and counterfeiting. See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 102-519, s 104(a), 106 Stat. 3385 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.A. s 981(a)(1)(F) (West Supp. 1995)) (providing for the forfeiture of property traceable to motor vehicle theft).
[FN48]. See supra note 47.
[FN49]. See 21 U.S.C. s 881(a)(1)-(3) (West 1981 & Supp. 1995).
[FN50]. See id. s 881(a)(6).
[FN51]. See id. s 881(a)(7).
[FN52]. The legislature enacted the Drug Control Act in an effort to eliminate the high profit margins associated with drug trafficking. See H.R. Rep. No. 1444, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566, 4567; H.R. Rep. No. 1030, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3374; see also Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing, 416 U.S. 663 (1974) (discussing the legislative history of the Drug Control Act); United States v. One 1972 Datsun, 378 F. Supp. 1200 (D. N.H. 1974).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.