Opinion ID: 779364
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Role of the Fourth Amendment in Civil Forfeiture

Text: 23 The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment protects claimants against unreasonable seizures of their property in the civil forfeiture context. See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 49, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) (The Fourth Amendment does place restrictions on seizures conducted for purposes of civil forfeiture....); see also One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 696, 700, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965) (holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings); cf. In re Seizure of All Funds in Accounts in Names Registry Publ'g, Inc., 68 F.3d 577, 580 (2d Cir. 1995) (In order to seize property under [federal civil forfeiture law], the government must demonstrate that there was probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture.); United States v. Daccarett, 6 F.3d 37, 49 (2d Cir.1993) ([T]his circuit requires seizures made pursuant to [federal civil forfeiture law] to comport with the fourth amendment.); United States v. $37,780 in U.S. Currency, 920 F.2d 159, 162 (2d Cir.1990) (same). 24 The Supreme Court has not said that a probable cause hearing is required after a warrantless seizure of property and before trial of a government's claim to title under a civil forfeiture law. Yet many of our laws are fashioned to ensure that a prompt hearing before a neutral judicial or administrative officer is held after the warrantless seizure of property and before full adjudication of the merits of a claim. One example is the federal civil forfeiture regime as administered by the courts of this Circuit in the context of seizures of illicit proceeds and instrumentalities. As this Court has recognized, the seizure and forfeiture of property are two distinct events under the [federal] civil forfeiture laws. Marine Midland Bank, 11 F.3d at 1124 (citing Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 46). 10 While both events require the government to have probable cause, the government is not required to demonstrate probable cause until the forfeiture trial unless a claimant challenges the validity of the seizure before trial.  Id. (emphasis added). If the government, once challenged, cannot establish probable cause for the initial seizure or offer post-seizure evidence to justify continued impoundment, retention of the seized property runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1125; see also United States v. U.S. Currency in Amount of One Hundred Forty-Six Thousand, Eight Hundred Dollars, No. 96-CV-4882, 1997 WL 269583, at  (E.D.N.Y. Apr.28, 1997) ([I]f the claimant [in a federal civil forfeiture action] properly raises the issue of the government's probable cause for seizure before the forfeiture trial, and if the claimant demonstrates that the government lacked probable cause at the time of seizure, the property may be returned to the claimant until the forfeiture trial is held.). 25 We recognize that the likelihood of illegal seizure is reduced in the context of DWI arrests and that the City's burden of proving probable cause in such cases is not onerous. 11 We cannot agree with the district court, however, that a warrantless arrest is sufficient by itself to ensure the legality of the initial seizure. Some risk of erroneous seizure exists in all cases, and in the absence of prompt review by a neutral fact-finder, we are left with grave Fourth Amendment concerns as to the adequacy of an inquiry into probable cause that must wait months or sometimes years before a civil forfeiture proceeding takes place. Our concerns are heightened by the fact that the seizing authority in this case has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. at 55-56, 114 S.Ct. 492; see also Property Clerk v. Hyne, 147 Misc.2d 774, 780, 557 N.Y.S.2d 244, 248 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co.1990) (noting that § 14-140's remedial purposes include the fact that revenue is generated and applied toward the cost of law enforcement), aff'd, 171 A.D.2d 506, 567 N.Y.S.2d 603 (1st Dep't 1991). 26