Court Opinion

ID: 9634730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:21:56.45554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:50.903081
License: Public Domain

Johnson, J.,
concurring. I concur with the result in this case but write to emphasize what the decision does and does not mean. Our decision today forecloses state jurisdiction over a defendant’s seized property only when federal forfeiture precedes a state in rem or quasi in rem proceeding involving the property. It does not mean that our state courts are always powerless to prevent the initiation of federal forfeiture proceedings. Rather, for a state court to properly take jurisdiction, a defendant must act in a timely fashion to bring a state in rem action. Here defendant waited two years after the federal seizure and forfeiture before seeking relief in state court. His action failed because he acted out of time, not because he chose the wrong remedy.
I agree with the Court that a criminal prosecution is an in personam proceeding and that seizure of defendant’s property as part of that prosecution does not convert it to an in rem proceeding. In order to establish in rem or quasi in rem, two criteria must be satisfied: the res must be present in the jurisdiction, and a complaint involving the res must be filed in state court. See Avery v. Bender, 124 Vt. 309, 314-15, 204 A.2d 314, 317 (1964). A V.R.Cr.P. 41 motion for the return of property fulfills both criteria, see United States v. $2,542 in United States Currency, 754 F. Supp. 378, 382 (D. Vt. 1990) (V.R.Cr.P. 41(e) proceeding is quasi in rem), and consequently, timely filing of such *537a motion establishes prior exclusive jurisdiction. Id. at 383. Thus, under our law, there is a race to the res, however undesirable that may be, and defendant can insure the state court’s prior jurisdiction over the seized property by filing a timely Rule 41(e) motion. Federal forfeiture proceedings will be forestalled at least until the court decides the motion.