Opinion ID: 588114
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prompt action required.

Text: 48 As to whether prompt action was required to secure this interest, we cannot agree with the government's argument that mere allegations of ongoing criminal activity, standing alone, justify pre-notice seizure and the shutdown of a thriving business. The government adds, however, yet another reason why prompt action was required here: pre-seizure hearing on notice would have served only to allow claimants the opportunity to remove any valuable assets of Statewide and/or cause waste to the defendant property and premises (emphasis added). This reasoning is at best ironic: had the government taken a less-drastic action, such as appointing a receiver to run Statewide during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings, or entered into the sort of occupancy agreement which we have heretofore favored, great waste could have been avoided at Statewide. In short, it is the government's choice of action--pre-hearing shutdown of an ongoing business--which is causing the waste. In Livonia we said: 49 As a general matter, a showing of exigent circumstances seems unlikely when a person's home is at stake, since, unlike other forms of property, a home cannot be readily moved or dissipated. Cf. United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in United States Currency, 461 U.S. 555, 562 & n. 12, 103 S.Ct. 2005, 2011 [&] n. 12; 76 L.Ed.2d 143 (1983) (seizure of currency); Calero-Toledo [v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.], 416 U.S. [663,] 679, 94 S.Ct. [2080,] 2089 [40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974) ] (seizure of pleasure yacht). Any exigency that might be posed by the threat of an encumbrance on, or transfer of, the property may be met by less restrictive means than seizure, for example, by the filing of a lis pendens, as was done in this case, along with a restraining order or bond requirement. 50 Livonia, 889 F.2d at 1265. What we said of Serafine's home in Livonia applies with full force to Muro's business here. Obviously, the defendant Real Property and Premises Known as 1256 Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York--Statewide's place of business--is not going to disappear overnight. True, the stolen automobiles arguably would have possessed the same movability concerns as did the pleasure yacht in Calero-Toledo, but--as the government conceded at oral argument--no automobiles were seized by the United States. 51 Concerning the remaining assets, the government had at its disposal numerous less-restrictive means for limiting their movement or dissipation. A receivership, an occupancy agreement, and a lis pendens--invoked separately or togetherwould have served the government's interest more than adequately, and would have simultaneously avoided the serious, irreparable damage caused by the summary shutdown of an ongoing business enterprise. 52