Opinion ID: 779364
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Temporal Gap Between Seizure and Forfeiture Proceedings

Text: 37 N.Y.C.Code § 14-140 and the applicable rules leave a significant temporal gap between the moment a vehicle is seized and the time the City commences forfeiture proceedings. Although it is possible for the City to initiate a forfeiture action earlier, it need not bring such an action until twenty-five days after a claim is made for the vehicle. 38-A R.C.N.Y. § 12-36(a) (If a timely demand is made for the return of the property before the forfeiture proceeding is instituted, such proceeding shall be brought no later than ... within 25 days after the date of demand.). 13 If no demand is made, the Property Clerk may initiate the action at its discretion. In the present case, forfeiture proceedings were commenced, at the earliest, three weeks after seizure of a vehicle, and, at the latest, well over two months after seizure. Thus, there typically exists a significant period after seizure and before the filing of the forfeiture action when the City is not held responsible for the legality of the warrantless seizure or the continued retention of the vehicle. The period between the seizure and the holding of a hearing in the forfeiture action is, of course, considerably longer. 14 It can take months or even years. 38 Many state forfeiture statutes, unlike N.Y.C.Code § 14-140, provide an early opportunity to challenge the governmental authority's probable cause for seizing property or the legitimacy of its retaining seized property during the pendency of proceedings. Florida's contraband forfeiture statute is one example. In upholding the Florida statute in a case involving police seizure of a vehicle from a public place, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that, although the police had not needed to obtain a warrant to seize the vehicle, the statute required that `the person entitled to notice is notified at the time of the seizure ... that there is a right to an adversarial preliminary hearing after the seizure to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that such property has been or is being used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.' Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 562 n. 2, 119 S.Ct. 1555, 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999) (quoting Fla. Stat. § 932.703(2)(a)). The Florida statute further provides: 39 Seizing agencies shall make a diligent effort to notify the person entitled to notice of the seizure. Notice provided by certified mail must be mailed within 5 working days after the seizure and must state that a person entitled to notice may request an adversarial preliminary hearing within 15 days after receiving such notice.... The seizing agency shall set and notice the hearing, which must be held within 10 days after the request is received or as soon as practicable thereafter. 40 Fla. Stat. § 932.703(2)(a); see also Cochran v. Harris, 654 So.2d 969, 972 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1995) (holding that a delay of twenty-three days beyond the ten-day limit for a hearing under § 932.703 violated the claimants' right to due process); cf. Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 13-4310(B) (providing that, upon timely application by an owner of or interest holder in property threatened with forfeiture, the court may issue an order to show cause to the seizing agency for a hearing on the sole issue of whether probable cause for forfeiture of the property then exists); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11488.4(h) (providing that [i]f there is an underlying or related criminal action, a defendant may move for the return of the property [threatened with civil forfeiture] on the grounds that there is not probable cause to believe that the property is forfeitable....). Nothing like the procedural safeguards contained in the Florida contraband forfeiture act and similar state statutes is built into the New York forfeiture law. 41 In addition, many state statutes afford avenues of interim relief for claimants who are adversely affected by seizure and retention of property. For example, the Florida contraband forfeiture statute provides that if the court determines that probable cause exists to seize property, the court shall order the property restrained by the least restrictive means to protect against disposal, waste, or continued illegal use of such property pending disposition of the forfeiture proceeding. Fla. Stat. § 932.703(2)(d). These means include a bond or other adequate security equivalent to the value of the property. Id.; cf. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-4306(G) (An owner of property seized for forfeiture may obtain the release of the seized property by posting... a surety bond or cash....); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11492(c) (providing for various remedies to preserve the status quo pendente lite, including a surety bond or undertaking to preserve the property interests of the interested parties); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:64-3(g) (providing that persons with an interest in property seized for forfeiture, except defendants prosecuted in connection with the seized property, may, after posting a bond, secure release of the property pending the forfeiture action). Again, no protections for a claimant's practical interests in seized property are provided for under the New York forfeiture law.