Legal Document

461 U.S. 555 103 S.Ct. 2005 76 L.Ed.2d 143 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($8,850) IN STATES CURRENCY. No. 81-1062. Argued Jan. 18, 1983. Decided May 23, Syllabus The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, 31 U.S.C. § 1101, requires persons knowingly transporting monetary instruments exceeding $5,000 into the United States to file a report with Customs Service declaring amount transported. Government is authorized under 1102(a) seize and forfeit any for which required was not filed. On September 10, 1975, claimant Vasquez upon arrival at Los Angeles International Airport from Canada, declared that she carrying more than in currency, but customs inspector discovered seized her $8,850 currency. informed by letter currency subject forfeiture had right petition remission or mitigation. A week later, filed such petition. Thereafter, October 1975 April 1976, Service, suspecting narcotics violations, conducted an investigation petition, concluded, after contacting federal, state, Canadian law enforcement officials, there evidence violations. Vasquez, however, indicted June 1976 for, convicted December of, willfully making false statements officer. In March 1977, complaint seeking Federal District Court. claimed 18-month delay between seizure filing action violated due process, Court held time elapsed reasonable circumstances forfeited. Appeals reversed ordered dismissal action. Held: facts, Government's civil proceeding did violate claimant's process law. Pp. 562-570. (a) balancing test Barker v. Wingo, 407 514, 92 2182, 33 101, developed determine when has abridged speedy trial provides relevant framework determining whether reasonable. That involves weighing four factors: length delay, reason defendant's assertion his right, prejudice defendant. 562-565. (b) this case, balance factors indicates instituting proceedings Although substantial period time, it justified where no mitigation pursued diligence responsible slow pace criminal proceedings. Nor desired early commencement proceeding, never having used available remedies seek return alleged shown prejudiced ability defend against forfeiture. 565-570. 645 F.2d 836 (9th Cir., 1981), remanded. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Victor Sherman, Angeles, Cal., respondent. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion 1 officials as passed through Airport. question case violates We conclude four-factor 101 (1972), Applying we find unreasonable delay. 2 * A. 3 Section 231 being Congress 1102(a). Since does specify procedures be followed seizing instruments, generally follows governing forfeitures violations laws, set forth 19 §§ 1602 et seq., implementing regulations. Under these procedures, notifies person who appears have interest property property's liability Secretary Treasury forfeiture.1 See CFR 162.31(a) (1982). regulations require within 60 days. 171.12(b) 4 If if decision on makes legal appear necessary,2 appropriate officer must prepare full Attorney. 1603 (1982).3 Upon receipt report, Attorney "immediately inquire facts" and, probable been incurred, "forthwith cause proper commenced prosecuted, without delay." 1604. After reported institution proceedings, administrative may taken 171.2(a) 5 processes over 50,000 non-contraband per year. U.S.A. 36 90% all seizures, files Brief Petitioner 7. turn grants least partial relief estimated 75% petitions. Ibid. Typically, terminates dispute district court. B 6 Mary Josephine companion arrived short visit Canada. During processing, Nevertheless, her. officially mitigation,4 asserting violation unintentional because mistakenly believed declare only funds obtained another country brought States. 7 20, Office Investigation assigned Special Agent Pompeo investigate Within few days, interviewed inspectors airport were involved seizure. several unsuccessful attempts contact him, mid-November contacted Vasquez's attorney arrange interview Vasquez. unable meet he present during client. Around also opened suspected smuggling drugs. From November until various part transaction.5 8 January inquired about status still investigation. 2, again regarding took place three days later. 26, requested acted soon possible. Also received final reports agencies. reports, concluded support charge 9 submitted Attorney, recommending prosecution reporting violation. reinterviewed agents findings, grand jury. 15, jury returned indictment charging felony officer, 18 1001; misdemeanor 1058 1101. sought count. 10 August recommended disposition withheld longer needed trial. 24, count acquitted failing report.6 Four completed, would further acting 11 claim referred two weeks, 1102 federal Court.7 answer complaint, admitted factual allegations asserted one affirmative defenses "dilatory processing" "dilatory" process. Court, two-day bench 1978, determined therefore forfeited 1102. 12 divided panel Ninth Circuit reversed. Proceeding premise bring actions promptly seizures infringe rights, its unjustified. specifically pending investigations cannot justify necessary elements established seeks resolution claim. likewise rejected argument should show defense As remedy violation, action.8 13 other Circuits criminal9 administrative10 claimant11 are considerations granted certiorari resolve conflict. 455 1015 reverse. II 14 issue presented here narrow one. concedes could constitutionally prior hearing.12 challenge sufficiency judicial hearing eventually held. She argues " 'at meaningful time,' Fuentes Shevin, 67, 80, 1983, 1994, 32 556, quoting Armstrong Manzo, 380 545, 552, 85 1187, 1191, 62 (1965). Unlike situation hearing, obvious bright line dictating post-seizure occur. Because our cases area wrestled pre-seizure previously become so prolonged dispossessed owner deprived time.13 15 general requirement prompt Rather, urges standard assessing timeliness suit same employed challenges prosecutions. articulated Lovasco, 431 783, 97 2044, 52 752 (1977), claims can prevail showing delayed deliberate attempt gain unfair tactical advantage defendant reckless disregard prejudicial impact charges. absence conduct sort, controlled applicable statute limitations. Here, institute five years. 1621. 16 reject suggestion Lovasco command. recognized interests suspect society better served if, absent bad faith extreme defendant, prosecutor allowed sufficient weigh sift ensure well-founded. While value allowing pursue applies well major distinction exists. retains liberty; whose seized, entirely use property. 17 apt analogy once formal issued. situation, complete liberty. Even post bail, liberty conditions bail agreement. Id., 530, S.Ct., 2192. Of course, dealt Sixth Amendment rather Fifth deprivation here—which initiation trial—mirrors concern undue encompassed inquiry heard time. often repeated seminal statement Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 481, 2593, 2600, 484 "due flexible calls procedural protections particular demands." E.g., Schweiker McClure, 456 188, 200, 102 1665, 1672, 72 (1982); Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division Craft, 436 1, 14, n. 98 1554, 1563, 56 30 (1978). approach Barker, "necessarily compels courts ad hoc basis," U.S., 2192, thus requirements met. stressed none condition finding guides assess basic fairness satisfied case.14 III applying overarching factor said "is some extent triggering mechanism." Little becomes presumptively improper, determination necessarily depends facts case. Our constitutional process; establishing Obviously, delays—of perhaps month so—need less justification delays. regard here—some months—as quite significant. Being sum money year half undoubtedly significant burden. 20 Closely related assigns 531, decide official's necessity hasty Both rule allows order entitle that, not, Cf. supra, 791, 2049. Normally, investigating make fairly quickly, alone rarely lengthy 21 An important delaying see Secretary's will obviate need This favor both Government. 521, 2187; 794-795, 2051. many cases, entitlement clear, prospect reacquiring favorably exercise discretion allow forced initiate lose benefit. Further, expensive Given great percentage successful petitions, wait petitions eliminates unnecessary burdensome court Finally, system whereby occurs spares litigants burden simultaneously participating forums.15 22 takes position, completely toll proceeding. Nothing statutory scheme supports argument. waive simply additional mitigation.16 Unreasonable processing hearing. pendency weighty inquiry. 23 Pending similar justifications contemporaneous substantially hamper which—as here—may include sentence. might serve estop later provide improper opportunities discover details contemplated prosecution. Compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) Fed.R.Crim.P. 16. circumstances, raise inconsistent See, e.g., Currency, 626 (CA6 1980). Again, element considered unreasonable. rapid since advent Speedy Trial 1974, 3161 automatically 24 relies initial seven months grant responses inquiries officers. Such inherently time-consuming, indication diligence. then matter indictments months. Importantly, prevailed, rendered unnecessary. There record reached verdict ended, made deny 25 impressed assessment speed. Indeed, oral colloquy commented: 26 "I anxious lot dilitory [sic] government really done what do push thing speed, frankly, I don't point lax. 27 "If found such, happy hold. . 28 "But, view here, just way say their diligence." App. 77. 29 sum, diligent pursuit indicate strongly reasons substantial. third able trigger desires it. First, equitable compelling Slocum Mayberry, (2 Wheat.) L.Ed. 169 (1817) (MARSHALL, C.J.). Less formally, request refer believes motion 41(e) things occasionally result asked reach promptly. failure desire primary hampered presenting merits, through, example, loss witnesses evidence. indicating affected propriety merits. contrary, conceded IV efforts pursuing indicated Therefore, denied judgment reversed, remanded consistent opinion. So ordered. 34 STEVENS, dissenting. 35 shall respondent 1975.* No kind provided. Court's view, satisfies 22, None activities bureaucrats undertook before Constitution statute. those impossible, even arduous, act establish hold respondent's my dispossess citizen consent flagrant Amendment. 37 respectfully dissent. addition provisions Title IV, contains own provision, 1104: "The remit penalty subchapter whole terms deems just." At non-judicial, summary merchandise $2,500. 1607-1609 (1976). raised limit $10,000. 1607 (1976 ed., Supp. V). appraised $10,000, posting $250 bond cover costs. 1608 contained purposes amended now "to promptly" whenever "in connection discovery required." 9, day seizure, counsel written informal Director Customs, explaining why money. normally misdemeanor, committed furtherance offense felony. 1059. conviction subsequently left room deliberations. 597 192 (CA9 1979). 28, notified denied. White Acree, 594 1385 (CA10 Thirty-Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars 642 1211 (CA5), cert denied, 454 835, 136, 70 114 (1981) (aff'g 510 F.Supp. 303 (ED La 1980)). Various Pieces Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment, 649 606 (CA8 1981); Mercedes 450 SLC, 667 1171 (CA5 Unit 1982). rule, "extraordinary situation" party invoke power state person's justified. Boddie Connecticut, 401 371, 378-379, 91 780, 786-787, 113 (1971). North Georgia Finishing, Inc. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 601, 95 719, 42 751 (1975); 556; Sniadach Family Finance Corp., 395 337, 89 1820, 349 (1969); cf. Mitchell W.T. Grant Co., 416 600, 94 1895, 40 406 (1974). But extraordinary exists seizes items Calero-Toledo Pearson Yacht Leasing 663, 2080, 452 (1974), upheld Puerto Rico modelled statute, 881(a), Rican authorities seize, notice yacht importing marijuana. clearly unworkable. decisive equally situation: serves governmental purposes; frustrate purpose; self-motivated private parties. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, 402 363, 1400, 822 (1971), construed obscene material requiring completion interpreted avoid possible First problems restraint. involve, occasion address, restraints imposed Due Process Clause. inclined interpret statutes question, impossible read scheme, limitations, 1621 expressly —loss liberty—may grievous one's here. Thus, interests, heavily context differ involving By regulation, while pending. (1980). 1978 revisions 162.31(a), warn claimants unless they agree defer begun. contraband; misstatement

Classification Label: 0