United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al. (510 U.S. 43)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 13, 1993 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 510 U.S. 43 · 114 S. Ct. 492
- Decided
- December 13, 1993
- Term
- October Term 1993
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Kennedy
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. The principal question presented is whether, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the Government in a civil forfeiture case from seizing real property without first affording the owner notice and an opportunity to be heard. We hold that it does. A second issue in the case concerns the timeliness of the forfeiture action. We hold that filing suit for forfeiture within the statute of limitations suffices to make the action timely, and that the cause should not be dismissed for failure to comply with certain other statutory directives for expeditious prosecution in forfeiture cases. I. On January 31, 1985, Hawaii police officers executed a search warrant at the home of claimant James Daniel Good. The search uncovered about 89 pounds of marijuana, marijuana seeds, vials containing hashish oil, and drug paraphernalia. About six months later, Good pleaded guilty to promoting a harmful drug in the second degree, in violation of Hawaii law. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1245(l)(b) (1985). He was sentenced to one year in jail and five years’ probation, and fined $1,000. Good was also required to forfeit to the State $3,187 in cash found on the premises. On August 8, 1989, 4V2 years after the drugs were found, the United States filed an in rem action in the United States District…
Excerpt of a 39,524-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.