Document: 474 U.S. 242 106 S.Ct. 610 88 L.Ed.2d 587 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.John VON NEUMANN, Respondent. No. 84-1144. Argued Nov. 4, 1985. Decided Jan. 14, 1986. Syllabus Respondent purchased a car in Switzerland and had it shipped to Vancouver, Canada. After he picked up the drove United States border but failed declare when asked by customs officer whether anything declare. Customs then seized pursuant 19 U.S.C. § 1497, which provides that any article not declared upon entry into law must be is subject forfeiture or penalty equaling value of article. Respondent, rather than waiting challenge seizure judicial action might initiated Government, immediately chose other statutory option filing petition for administrative remission forfeiture. Two weeks later posted bond $24,500, car's value, released car. The Service did respond until 36 days after was filed, at time failure reduced $3,600, this upheld on review. filed complaint Federal District Court, seeking cancellation ground violated declaration were unlawful. Court disagreed entered judgment Government. Appeals held 36-day delay acting respondent's denied him due process violation Fifth Amendment. Subsequently remand from reconsideration light v. $8,850, 461 555, 103 2005, 76 143, four-factor balancing test Barker Wingo, 407 514, 92 2182, 33 101—the length delay, reason defendant's assertion his right, prejudice suffered defendant—applied $8,850 determining bringing proceeding should also applied determine case process, accordingly remanded question under above test. Held: On record, deprive respondent property without law. Pp. 249-251. (a) Respondent's right meeting postseizure hearing required protect interest statute simply grants Secretary Treasury discretion pursue complete despite Government's entitlement one. Remission proceedings are necessary determination, therefore constitutionally required. Thus, there no constitutional basis claim car, money put secure bond, entitled speedy answer petition. 249-250. (b) Even if cannot taken away includes petition, requirement timely disposition more adequately provided here. It shown delay. 250-251. 729 F.2d 657 (CA 9, 1984), reversed. BRENNAN, J., delivered opinion WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, Parts I II BURGER, C.J., joined. an concurring part, post, p. ---. STEVENS, judgment. Alan I. Horowitz, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Charles L. Birke, Los Angeles, Cal., respondent. Justice BRENNAN Court. 1 We decide responding response agents deprived 2 * Title 14971 Service, claimant has essentially two options. He may remedy U.S.C.A. 1618 (Supp.1985),2 vests discretionary authority mitigate remit forfeiture, Government.3 §§ 1602-1604.4 3 In 1974 respondent, John Von Neumann Canada, Jaguar Panther automobile Switzerland. January 20, 1975, friend obtained release Canadian take possession vehicle form deliver station border. officials. claimed inadvertently past because poor visibility inadequate directions. Instead, arrived checkpoint Blaine, where they questioned Immigration Officer Harry Perkins, designated officer. officials earlier alerted Neumann's would crossing border, Perkins specifically When automobile, referred matter Inspector Donald E. Morrison. Upon being why explained think Morrison 1497. 4 That same day, prepared "Petition Mitigation Forfeitures Penalties Incurred," 1618, explaining intended violate laws later, February 3, its 1614. 12, counsel supplement original 25—36 filed—the Seattle Director delegation Treasury,5 acted informed $3,600. review Regional Commissioner San Francisco, April $3,600 penalty. 5 Having exhausted remedies, Central California. sought requested injunction prohibiting placing name computer list violators, found proper. court validity mitigation procedures. Accordingly, Government.6 appealed decision, challenging both procedures followed imposing itself. 6 Ninth Circuit agreed with 660 1319, 1323 (1981). court, however, considered sustained reasoned speed handling particularly required—that strict guidelines petitions "to ensure rights claimants," id., 1326-1327, concluded "act within 24 hours receipt," 1327. addition, ruled, personal appearance present her claim. Ibid. 7 Government petitioned certiorari. granted vacated, 143 (1983). 462 1101, 2446, 77 1328 issue presented involve procedure; 18-month claimant's requires determination reasonable seizure. 101 (1972), relevant framework reasonable. involves weighing four factors: defendant. Applying before it, unreasonable part substantial portion attributable pending criminal proceedings. 8 case, recognized "presented somewhat different arising instant case," 657, 659 (1984), dealt procedure. Nevertheless, Court's holding "reinforces our view attach processing remission," F.2d, 660, reaffirmed "due act promptly ruling 1618." attempt set specific limits "ill-advised," ibid., instead factors delaying consider process. made clear circumstances support finding violation. noted propriety turn nature item been seized, reemphasized point "special hardships [are] imposed persons use their automobiles. . ." 661. With respect observed "record here obvious one-month although we note processes great number each year." pointed itself as Barker. Finally, could established inconvenience time. 9 Arguing considerations do govern Secretary's petitions, 471 1064, 105 2137, 85 495 (1984). now reverse. 10 understand argue gives awaiting proceeding. disagree. Implicit discussion timeliness proceeding, more, car.7 argues, "[t]he procedure just one step determined will extinguished via foreclosure proceeding." Brief 8-9. misunderstands procedure's role. true that, practical matter, most forfeitures disposed through procedures,8 constitutionallyirrelevant. One Lot Emerald Cut Stones States, 409 232, 234, 93 489, 491, 34 438 event 1497 need only prove brought declaration; bears burden intent." supply way resolve dispute informally But Thus entitles III 11 While relies Appeals' asks adjudge who argument creates argues such right. address hypothetical, however. abundantly record even difficult, indeed impossible, see what response. True, 14 days, then, another 22 urges importance automobiles citizens society. have already satisfies money. fact, altogether certain dated 20 supplemented given final decision 13 later. Moreover, hint how claims connection does prejudiced defense against U.S., 569, S.Ct., 2012, preparing "case" remission, affected subsequent us, said 12 Reversed. Chief part. join majority opinion, agree failure, Part important properly 15 declines assert "property" result reduction This expressly grant opinions sufficiently ambiguous leave unclear relying itself, some having reduced. initial [respondent's] proc ¢s252¢s prompt consideration claim." 1327 (CA9 1981) (emphasis added). 16 Whether obligation it. Resolution difficult. Connecticut Board Pardons Dumschat, 452 458, 2460, 69 158 (1981), prisoner liberty cognizable parole, though state parole inmates regularly routinely release. follows directly can possible unless modify Dumschat. 17 confront alternative period regardless "interests" actually involved. 18 fact required, ante, 249-250, shed diligence. For obligated so, Congress enacted legislation authorizing create underlined used almost 50,000 every year. Its significance suggested least partially successful claimants triple come emptyhanded. indicates principal mechanism resolving between individual frequently results borders. authorizes member Cabinet establish thousands individuals, surely intends administered regular fundamentally fair way. element diligence claims. Absent evidence contrary, construe implicitly commanding diligently, speculate about possibility wholly arbitrary comply Due Process Clause Amendment.* 21 ultimate conclusion demonstrated concur Section 497, 46 Stat. 728, provides: "Any included made, and, examination baggage begun, mentioned writing person, written orally shall person liable equal article." 618, 757, amended forth (1982 ed., Supp. III), pertinent part: "Whenever interested vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, provisions chapter, incurred, alleged fine thereunder, files sale fine, penalty, finds incurred willful negligence intention petitioner defraud revenue law, existence mitigating justify terms conditions deems just, order discontinuance prosecution relating thereto." trigger initiation (1983), noted: "A able rapid desires First, file equitable compelling return property. See Slocum Mayberry, Wheat. 1, 10, L.Ed. 169 (1817) (Marshall, C.J.). Less formally, request refer Attorney. If believes improper, motion Rule Criminal Procedure 41(e) property." instituted nonjudicial, summary $10,000. 1607-1609. since raised limit $100,000. 1607 III). appraised less $100,000, posting cover costs sum $2,500 10% property, whichever smaller, $250. 1608 authorized remission. 1618. delegated Directors cases total merchandise forfeited exceed C.F.R. 171.21 (1985). At seizure, $25,000. (1974). contingent counterclaim recovery full $24,500 accordance invalid. Because favor merits complaint, counterclaim. contended received settlement, accord, satisfaction binding Neumann. reach issue; nor we. conceded preseizure makes here, doubt could. while general rule "absent 'extraordinary situation' party invoke power seize person's prior justified. [D]ue require federal conduct seizing items forfeiture." 562, n. 2011, 12. make entirely unworkable "the serves governmental purposes[,] notice frustrate purpose. over noncontraband per year, 90% all seizures, mitigation. further partial relief estimated 75% petitions. Typically, terminates necessity action. concedes acts fully reviewable. 25, ("A powerless obtain resolution Administrative Act, suit compel agency act. 706(1)").

Category: 0