Court Opinion

ID: 9487016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:06:00.649409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:03.224423
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree that, because Mr. Torres did not make a claim in the civil forfeiture proceeding, he did not become a party to that proceeding .and therefore could not have been placed in jeopardy. Therefore, I agree that the judgment ought to be affirmed on that ground.
The ink is hardly dry on the Supreme Court’s decision in Montana Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994), and the government has not yet had the opportunity to brief fully its applicability to the federal civil forfeiture provisions. Upon reviewing the pre-Kurth Ranch decisions of the other circuits, United States v. Millan, 2 F.3d 17 (2d Cir.1993), and United States v. 18755 North Bay Road, 13 F.3d 1493, 1499 (11th Cir.1994), I believe that the preferable course is to refrain from expressing an opinion on their continued vitality until we have the assistance of counsel and perhaps further guidance from the Supreme Court. With this reservation, I am pleased to join the judgment and the opinion of the court.