Court Opinion

ID: 9429200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:25:58.628671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:17.612285
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. In this case the claimant was deprived of her property on September 10, 1975.* No preseizure process of any kind was provided. The postseizure proceeding that, under the Court’s view, satisfies the constitutional requirement was commenced on March 22, 1977, over 18 months later.
None of the various activities that various Government bureaucrats undertook before filing the civil forfeiture proceeding was required by the Constitution or by any statute. None of those activities made it impossible, or even arduous, for the Government to act promptly to establish its right to hold claimant’s currency. In my opinion a rule that allows the Government to dispossess a citizen of her property for more than 18 months without her consent and without a hearing is a flagrant violation of the Fifth Amendment.
I respectfully dissent.

 The property was not contraband; it was seized simply because claimant made a misstatement to a customs officer.