Dusenbery v. United States

Facts

In April 1986, the FBI arrested P at a house trailer in Atwater, Ohio. They seized drugs, drug paraphernalia, several firearms, a ballistic knife, an automobile registered in the name of P's stepmother, and various other items of personal property. Among these was $21,939 in cash, $394 of which had been found on petitioner's person, $7,500 in the inside pocket of a coat in the dining area and $14,045 in a briefcase found on the floor in the living room. P pled guilty to a charge of possession with intent to distribute 813 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment followed by 6 years of special parole. Two years later, D, no longer expecting the firearms and knife to be used as evidence in a future prosecution, and unable to determine their rightful owner, sought and obtained an order from the District Court authorizing the FBI to destroy them. The FBI also began the process of administratively forfeiting the cash and the automobile. The agents of D were allowed to dispose of property under the Controlled Substances Act without initiating judicial proceedings if the property's value did not exceed $100,000, and if no person claimed an interest in the property within 20 days after D's published notice of its intention to forfeit and sell or otherwise dispose of it. The statute required the agency to send written notice of the seizure together with information on the applicable forfeiture procedures to each party who appeared to have an interest in the property.  It also required the publication for at least three successive weeks of a similar notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the judicial district in which the forfeiture proceeding was brought. D sent letters of its intention to forfeit the cash by certified mail addressed to P care of the Federal Correctional Institution where P was then incarcerated; to the address of the residence where P was arrested; and to an address in Randolph, Ohio, the town where P's mother lived. It placed the requisite legal notice in three consecutive Sunday editions of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. D received no response to these notices within the time allotted, and so declared the items administratively forfeited. Five years later, P moved in the District Court pursuant to Rule 41(e) seeking return of all the property and funds seized in his criminal case. The District Court denied the motion, reasoning that any challenge to the forfeiture proceedings should have been brought in a civil action, not as a motion ancillary to petitioner's now-closed criminal case. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the District Court abused its discretion, however, by not construing the motion as a civil complaint seeking equitable relief for a due process challenge to adequacy of the notice of the administrative forfeiture. On remand, an officer at the correction facility testified about how certified letters were handled. The procedure would have been to log the mail in, for P's 'Unit Team' to sign for it, and for it then to be given to P. The paper trail no longer existed because the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had a policy of holding prison logbooks for only one year after they were closed. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The District Court ruled that D's notice of the cash forfeiture comported with due process even in the absence of proof that the mail actually reached P. The court of appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.