Court Opinion

ID: 9466409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:14:52.24428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:42.967192
License: Public Domain

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
I agree that the evidence should not be suppressed, and therefore concur in the judgment of the court.
With all respect, however, I do not accept the court’s interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 881(b). This provision was enacted in 1970 as part of the so-called Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which had as one of its aims “to strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse.” House Report No. 91 — 1444, 3 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News,, p. 4566 (1970). When this legislation was enacted, long-standing authority already existed (and was not then repealed) for the seizure of a vehicle which “has been or is being used” to transport contraband such as a narcotic drug. 49 U.S.C. §§ 781, 782. As of 1970 the courts were virtually unanimous that forfeit property could be constitutionally seized without warrant. See, e. g., United States v. Francolino, 367 F.2d 1013, 1021 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 960, 87 S.Ct. 1020, 18 L.Ed.2d 110 (1967). There is not a shred of evidence that the framers of the 1970 Act, which contained the criticized “no-knock” provision, intended to restrict the authority of law enforcement officers in the manner outlined by my brethren. Indeed my brethren not only credit the Congressmen with engrafting a judicially evolved “automobile exception” onto § 881(b)(4), but also go a step further and here select, without explanation and without any support in the legislative record, an especially restrictive version of such an exception. I could understand, though not agree with, their approach if presented as a constitutional ruling. But I do not see how it can possibly be presented as a piece of statutory construction. There is not a hint in the statute or legislative history that Congress intended that the Attorney General’s powers in the drug enforcement field were to become less than his powers to seize, for example, vehicles used to transport counterfeit currency, governed by 49 U.S.C. §§ 781, 782. To the contrary, the legislative history indicates that Congress thought it was increasing law enforcement powers in the narcotics field. Significantly, 49 U.S.C. §§ 781, 782 were not repealed as respects narcotics, as would have been expected had Congress intended to tighten up on warrant requirements, contrary to preexisting law.
*333The court bases its restrictive construction of § 881(b)(4) solely on the supposition that to give effect to its plain language is to “swallow up” the earlier part of the statute which indicates that seizure may be effected “upon process issued pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime claims.” To develop this argument, my colleagues make the novel assumption that the “warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action” mentioned in Rule C of the Supplemental Rules is governed by the fourth amendment requirement that no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause. They then argue that since probable cause would be required in any event, a literal reading of the § 881(b)(4) exception would vitiate the earlier provision calling for process to be used. The court concludes that Congress, simply forgot to indicate that warrantless seizures under § 881(b)(4) were reserved for cases of extreme exigency, where the vehicle was presently being used to transport drugs.
There are two answers to this approach. The first is that even if § 881(b)(4) providing for warrantless seizures is overly broad as written, this scarcely justifies the supposition that Congress intended the limitation now imposed. That limitation is not self-evident, and there is nothing in the legislative history to show that Congress had it, or any other, limitation in mind. The mere fact that a statute is, in a court’s view, poorly conceived does not license the court to rewrite it in a manner which radically departs from prior law and for which Congress has expressed no preference.
My second difficulty with the court’s approach is that I think it wrong insofar ás it reviews the maritime in rem procedure referred to in § 881(b) as mandating a prior probable cause finding, as such, by the clerk. The supplemental admiralty rules provide for an entirely different type of proceeding from one in which a conventional search warrant is issued. Compare Fed. R.Crim.P. 41. Under Rule C(3), once a verified complaint is filed, the clerk is directed forthwith to issue a “warrant” for the arrest of the vessel or other property. Admiralty practitioners (and clerks) would be shocked to learn that the clerk in an in rem proceeding must refuse to issue process before making a determination of probable cause. See discussion in 7A Moore’s Federal Practice 681-82 (2d ed. 1948) (“Once a Complaint in proper form is filed, it is the duty of the clerk to issue' and deliver the warrant ‘forthwith.’ ”). While the process the clerk issues may be called a warrant, use of this term does not necessarily import all of the substance and procedure of criminal arrest or seizure warrants. The fact that process may issue without a showing of probable cause before a neutral magistrate is not fatal. As Judge Wright observed (though did not decide) in Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 133 U.S. App.D.C. 229, 409 F.2d 1146, 1150 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 963, 90 S.Ct. 434, 24 L.Ed.2d 427 (1969), a case involving an FDA condemnation proceeding subject to the admiralty procedure,
“Though warrants are generally necessary for the arrests of persons and for searches, the warrant requirement has not traditionally been imposed upon seizures of the type involved in this case— attachment of property in the course of civil proceedings. This does not mean that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to such seizures, in both its substantive prohibition against unreasonable seizures and its procedural requirement of judicial or quasi-judicial review of the decision to seize. It means merely that judicial restraint is imposed through a different form of proceeding than the showing of probable cause before a magistrate. In the case of ordinary civil attachments, the details of such proceedings are, even in the federal courts, left to state law. In cases in admiralty, the process is governed by the Admiralty Rules, lately recodified as a supplement to the Civil Rules. [Footnotes omitted].”
See also United States v. Articles of Hazardous Substance, 588 F.2d 39 (4th Cir. 1978). (See also Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1973) (summary forfeiture does not deny due process)).
*334I thus read § 881(b) as simply providing for two alternative means of commencing forfeiture proceedings, the first being in the nature of an attachment pursuant to the admiralty procedure and the second, seizure. The Attorney General may commence the proceeding by filing a verified complaint, in which event process for seizure of the conveyance or property will issue “forthwith” (see Rule C), and the owner may defend in court if he believes the seizure unjustified. Alternatively, the Attorney General may effect a seizure without initiating judicial proceedings but only if he determines there is probable cause. In the latter case, forfeiture proceedings are to be instituted “promptly” thereafter. Given the differences between these two procedures, I think, with all due respect, that the “swallow-up” argument disappears. Congress could quite rationally offer both alternatives to the Attorney General.* To be sure, my colleagues may feel that Congress went about things the wrong way, but that is another matter.
Since, as I would submit, there is nothing whatever to show Congress intended in the 1970 Act to change the law on the matter of warrantless seizures, I think the only question today must be a constitutional one. On that subject, the existing law, as best I can discern it, is as described in the panel’s decision, 600 F.2d 300 (1st Cir. 1979), to which I would adhere. To be sure, the Supreme Court may in the future decide the time has come to alter the traditional view that forfeiture is an exception to the warrant requirement. But I think it preferable that major constitutional evolutions in this area be left to that tribunal so as to provide a greater degree of uniformity and more certainty for those whose duty it is to enforce the law.

 Use of an in rem procedure has been a common means of effecting forfeitures. See Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 683-86, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1973). Such a procedure would seem especially suitable for the arrest of vessels and merchandise in bulk, id., but may have seemed too cumbersome for many other cases.