Opinion ID: 395208
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The United States: The Civil Forfeiture Proceeding

Text: 33 After being ordered to return White's cash based upon White's successful Rule 41(e) motion, the Government commenced two civil forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) (1978). That provision authorizes forfeiture proceedings against the proceeds of illegal narcotics transactions. One proceeding, not at issue on this appeal, sought the forfeiture of the $3,800 in pre-recorded funds seized from White's apartment. White did not contest that forfeiture action. The second proceeding sought the forfeiture of the remaining $38,394 of the seized money. 34 The district court granted White's motion for summary judgment on the second forfeiture complaint because the government was collaterally estopped from establishing that it had obtained the money under authority of law. United States v. $38,394 U.S. Currency, 498 F.Supp. 1325, 1326-27 (N.D.Ill.1980). The prior determination on consideration of White's Rule 41(e) motion that the seizure was unconstitutional was the source of the collateral estoppel. Because we have reversed that determination and hold that the seizure was lawful, we vacate the judgment for White in the civil forfeiture action and remand for further proceedings. 35 Affirmed In Part, Reversed In Part And Vacated And Remanded In Part.