Calero-Toledo et al. v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.
416 U.S. 663 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government may seize property subject to forfeiture without prior notice or a hearing if the seizure serves a significant government interest, requires prompt action, and is initiated by government officials. Furthermore, the property of an owner who voluntarily entrusts it to another may be forfeited due to that person's illegal use without violating the Due Process or Takings Clauses of the Constitution.
Facts:
- In March 1971, Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. leased a pleasure yacht to two residents of Puerto Rico.
- The lease agreement contained a clause prohibiting the use of the yacht for any unlawful purpose.
- In early May 1972, Puerto Rican authorities discovered marijuana on board the yacht and charged one of the lessees with a narcotics violation.
- On July 11, 1972, more than two months after the discovery, the Superintendent of Police seized the yacht.
- Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. was in no way involved in the criminal enterprise and had no knowledge that its property was being used in violation of Puerto Rican law.
- Pearson first learned of the seizure and forfeiture when it attempted to repossess the yacht from the lessees due to their failure to pay rent.
Procedural Posture:
- The Superintendent of Police of Puerto Rico seized a yacht pursuant to Puerto Rican forfeiture statutes.
- Notice was given to the lessees, who did not challenge the seizure, resulting in the yacht's forfeiture to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
- The yacht's owner, Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., sued the Superintendent of Police and another official (appellants) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- Pearson sought a declaration that the statutes were unconstitutional and an injunction against their enforcement.
- A three-judge District Court was convened, which held that the statutes were unconstitutional for failing to provide a preseizure hearing and for depriving an innocent owner of property without compensation.
- The District Court enjoined the appellants from enforcing the statutes.
- The Puerto Rican officials (appellants) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the application of Puerto Rican forfeiture statutes violate the Constitution by authorizing the seizure of property without prior notice and a hearing, and by forfeiting the property of an owner who was not involved in or aware of the illegal activity for which the property was used?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. The application of the Puerto Rican forfeiture statutes does not violate the Constitution. The seizure of property subject to forfeiture without a prior hearing is permissible in extraordinary situations, and the forfeiture of an innocent owner's property is a well-established practice that does not constitute an unconstitutional taking. The Court found this to be an 'extraordinary situation' justifying postponement of notice and hearing because: 1) the seizure serves the significant governmental interests of preventing continued illicit use of property and asserting jurisdiction over it; 2) preseizure notice could allow the property, a mobile yacht, to be moved or concealed; and 3) the seizure was initiated by government officials, not private parties. Citing a long history of in rem forfeiture statutes dating back to English common law, the Court reaffirmed the principle that property itself can be treated as the 'offender,' and an owner's innocence is not a constitutional defense when they voluntarily entrust their property to another. This practice serves important punitive and deterrent purposes.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes. The application of the statutes violates the Constitution. The two-month delay between the discovery of the marijuana and the seizure of the yacht demonstrates there was no 'special need for very prompt action' that would justify dispensing with a preseizure hearing. Furthermore, forfeiting the property of a wholly innocent owner who was not negligent constitutes a taking of private property for public use without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The ancient legal fiction that an inanimate object can be guilty is irreconcilable with modern constitutional requirements of due process, and it results in extreme hardship on innocent parties.
Concurring - Justice White
No. The seizure and forfeiture were constitutional. I agree with the Court's opinion that a preseizure hearing was not constitutionally required in this case due to the presence of important public interests. However, this is only one of several situations in which a prior hearing is not required under the Due Process Clause.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the government's civil forfeiture powers by broadly applying the 'extraordinary situations' exception to the due process requirement of a pre-deprivation hearing. It reaffirmed the controversial, centuries-old legal fiction that property can be 'guilty,' thus allowing the forfeiture of assets from owners who are entirely innocent of the underlying crime. The ruling solidified civil forfeiture as a major tool for law enforcement, especially in narcotics cases, by making it difficult for innocent owners to reclaim property that they voluntarily entrusted to a third party. The Court's suggestion that an owner who did 'all that reasonably could be expected' to prevent illegal use might have a defense has created a narrow, but rarely successful, path for future challenges.
Unlock the full brief for Calero-Toledo et al. v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.