United States v. Domingo Baez

MEMORANDUM

Domingo Baez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for return of $1,351.00 in cash seized from him by drug enforcement agents in September 2008. Baez contends that the declaration of civil forfeiture must be set aside because he did not receive actual notice of the forfeiture. The plain language of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 983 (e)(1)(A), forecloses Baez’s argument. The statute requires only that the government take reasonable steps to provide notice to potentially interested parties; it does not require actual notice. Moreover, Baez cannot show that he did not know, or have reason to know, of the seizure within sufficient time to file a timely claim, as CAFRA requires, since the monies were seized from his person. See 18 U.S.C. § 983 (e)(1)(A).

Baez’s additional contention that due process requires that he receive actual notice prior to the forfeiture of his assets is likewise without merit. “The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the United States ... from depriving any person of property without ‘due process of law.’” Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 167 , 122 S.Ct. 694 , 151 L.Ed.2d…