Opinion ID: 703617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment and Double Jeopardy

Text: 14 Finally, Unanka contends that his personal property and currency was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that forfeiture of his property would subject him multiple punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Further, Unanka contends that the forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed these claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction apparently concluding that once Unanka's due process claim failed his other claims were barred by sovereign immunity. Cf. Marshall, 893 F.2d at 1098-99. Because we vacated in part the dismissal of Unanka's due process claim, we also vacate the dismissal of his Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment and Double Jeopardy claims with respect to Unanka's challenge to recover his personal property. We affirm the dismissal of these claims with respect to Unanka's challenge to recover the forfeited currency. Cf. id.; see also, Sarat V. Drug Enforcement Admin., 987 F.2d 10, (1st Cir.1993) (forfeiture statute 'clearly makes available to a claimant invoking the remedy an appropriate forum in which to test the legality of the contested seizure.'  (citation omitted)). 15 AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.