United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property

Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawCivil ForfeitureDue ProcessTimelinessFifth AmendmentDue Process Clausecivil forfeiturereal property

Facts

After Hawaii police found marijuana and related items in Good's home in 1985, Good pleaded guilty to a Hawaii drug offense. In 1989, the United States filed a civil forfeiture action against Good's house and 4-acre parcel, alleging the property had been used to commit or facilitate a federal drug offense under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). A magistrate judge issued an ex parte warrant of arrest in rem based on probable cause, and the Government seized the property without first giving Good notice or an adversary hearing. At the time, Good was renting the home to tenants, and the Government allowed the tenants to stay but redirected future rent payments to the United States Marshal.

Issue

Whether, absent exigent circumstances, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause permits the Government in a civil forfeiture case to seize real property without first giving the owner notice and an opportunity to be heard. A second issue was whether a forfeiture action filed within the five-year statute of limitations must nevertheless be dismissed for failure to comply with internal statutory timing directives in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1604.

Rule

Unless exigent circumstances are present, the Due Process Clause requires the Government to provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property subject to civil forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). Exigent circumstances exist only if the Government shows that less restrictive measures, such as a lis pendens, restraining order, or bond, would not suffice to protect its interests in preventing sale, destruction, or continued unlawful use of the property. Separately, a forfeiture action is timely if filed within the five-year statute of limitations in 19 U.S.C. § 1621, and courts may not dismiss it for noncompliance with the internal timing directives of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1604 when Congress specified no such sanction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Federal prosecutors in Phoenix file a civil forfeiture action against a duplex allegedly used to facilitate felony drug sales. On the same day, they obtain an ex parte seizure warrant from a magistrate based on probable cause and immediately take control of the duplex, redirecting rent to the marshal, but they never explain why a lis pendens or restraining order would not protect the Government's interests.

If the owner challenges the seizure under the Fifth Amendment, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that compliance with the Fourth Amendment alone does not satisfy due process when the Government seizes real property for civil forfeiture. Applying Mathews, the Court found the owner's interests in possession, use, sale, and rents substantial, the risk of error high in ex parte proceedings, and the Government's need for immediate seizure generally weak because less restrictive tools exist. Unless exigent circumstances are present, notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard must precede seizure of real property.