United States v. Donald Lawrence Ritchie, Heather Horner, Claimant-Appellant

Bad Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 9689·342 F.3d 903·2003 WL 22004994·56 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 577·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7757
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 26, 200301-35989California3,339 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

After the conclusion of criminal proceedings, appellant Heather Horner sought the return of seized personal property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e). The district court denied relief, and we reverse. We hold that Horner’s Rule 41(e) motion should have been treated as a complaint filed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Joining our sister circuits, we further hold that when a letter providing personal notice of a forfeiture proceeding is returned undelivered, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) must make reasonable additional efforts to provide personal notice of the proceeding.

I. Background

Appellant Horner was dating Donald Ritchie, a drug dealer. In the course of its investigation of Ritchie in 1999, the DEA obtained and executed a search warrant at Horner’s apartment. The DEA found and confiscated $3,000 cash, a revolver, and other items. Ritchie was subsequently arrested and convicted of federal drug charges, but Horner was never charged or arrested. The DEA nonetheless administratively forfeited the cash and revolver it had taken from her apartment.

After the completion of criminal proceedings against Ritchie, Horner filed a pro se…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.