United States v. James Daniel Good Property Titled in the Name of James Daniel Good

This appeal challenges the civil forfeiture of a home pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7), 1 the provision of the Controlled Substance Act that authorizes the forfeiture of real property. James Daniel Good challenged the forfeiture as untimely and as a violation of due process. The district court, exercising jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (b), granted the government’s motion for summary judgement. The district court found the action to be timely and in accordance with due process. Notice of Appeal was filed in compliance with Fed.R.App.P. 4(a). Our jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse and remand on the timing issue; we reverse on the due process question, finding that Good’s rights were violated, and we affirm the district court in all other respects.

I.

On January 31, 1985, pursuant to a search warrant, Hawaii state police officers uncovered approximately 89 pounds of marijuana, marijuana seeds, vials containing hashish oil, and other drug paraphernalia. Good pleaded guilty on July 3, 1985 to promoting a harmful drug in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 712-1245(l)(b). He served one year in jail and was placed on probation. He was also required in a…

concurring and dissenting:

I concur in all but Part II, as to which I dissent. In Part II, the court has converted a set of housekeeping rules for the government into statutory protection for. the property of malefactors. Once property has been used in the commission of a narcotics offense it is subject to forfeit. 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a). The government is free to claim the forfeiture any time after the offense is discovered. The only relevant restriction is the statute of limitations, which bars suit five years after the time of discovery. 19 U.S.C. § 1621 .

The opinion of the court in Part II, in effect, creates a new statute of limitations. It also provides a new construction of a statute that has been in existence for almost seventy years and has been applied in a variety of contexts to customs offenses without any court ever giving the statute the application given in this case. The closest authority that the majority can find is dicta in a case that speaks of “due process implications” if a forfeiture were *1385 “brought against a property the owner of which already has been tried and acquitted.” United States v. Land and Bldg, at 2 Burditt Street, 924 F.2d 383, 386 (1st…