United States v. John Sardone

We are asked to decide whether there is any viable double jeopardy defense based on a prior civil forfeiture of property representing the proceeds of drug transactions.

I

In May 1993, a secret indictment was returned against appellant John Sardone charging him with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. A search warrant was executed on Sardone’s home, and he was arrested. During the search, law enforcement officers seized a 1989 Ford F150 truck, a 1991 Suzuki Intruder motorcycle, and $5,000 in cash.

In separate form letters dated June 7, 1993, Sardone was notified that each vehicle was seized “for forfeiture under [ 21 U.S.C. § 881 ], because it was used or acquired as a result of a drug-related offense.” Sardone received a third similar letter as to the cash. Sardone was later sent two documents, each entitled “Notice of Seizure of a Conveyance for a Drug-Related Offense,” notifying him more specifically that each vehicle had been seized because “[i]t was acquired with the proceeds of illegal drug trafficking in violation of [ 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6) ]....” The letters notified Sardone that administrative forfeiture…