skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 30636 Find in a Library
Title: STATUTORY FORFEITURES - THE TAKING OF PEARSON'S YACHT CALERO-TOLEDO V PEARSON YACHT LEASING CO., 416 U.S. 633 1974
Journal: NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW  Volume:54  Issue:4  Dated:(1975)  Pages:711-723
Author(s): S E ACHELPOHL
Corporate Author: University of Nebraska
College of Law
United States of America
Date Published: 1975
Page Count: 13
Sponsoring Agency: University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68508
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: IN THIS CASE, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMED ITS POSITION THAT FORFEITURE STATUTES MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO INNOCENT PROPERTY OWNERS SUCH AS LESSORS, BAILORS, AND SECURED CREDITORS.
Abstract: THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT SEIZURE FOR PURPOSES OF FORFEITURE CONSTITUTES AN 'EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION' WHICH JUSTIFIES POSTPONING NOTICE AND AN ADVERSARY HEARING. THE DECISION OVERTURNED A LOWER COURT RULING WHICH HELD THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON TWO DISTINCT GROUNDS: AS A TAKING OF PROPERTY FOR GOVERNMENT USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION AND AS A TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT ADEQUATE NOTICE AND HEARING. THIS NOTE ARGUES THAT SUCH SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF BENEFICIAL PROPERTY OF INNOCENT OWNERS SERVES NO LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE AND SHOULD INDEED BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AFTER A REVIEW OF THE BACKGROUND OF FORFEITURES AND OF THE PERTINENT CASE LAW, THE AUTHOR CRITICIZES THE REASON COURT'S RULING THAT A MERE SHOWING OF CONSENT TO USE (AS OPPOSED TO KNOWING CONSENT FOR ILLEGAL USE) IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT FOR FORFEITURE. CITED ARE PROBLEMS INVOLVED WITH UNDERSTANDING HOW THE OBJECTIVE OF CURBING ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC CAN BE ACHIEVED BY FORFEITING THE PROPERTY OF INNOCENT OWNERS AND WITH THE COURT'S IRREBUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF THE OWNER'S COLLUSION IN THE CRIME. THE AUTHOR RECOMMENDS THAT FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY OF INNOCENT OWNERS SHOULD BE ABANDONED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)
Index Term(s): Female juvenile delinquents; Forfeiture; Male juvenile delinquents; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=30636

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.