United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al.
510 U.S. 43 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In the absence of exigent circumstances, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to afford notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property subject to civil forfeiture.
Facts:
- On January 31, 1985, police executed a search warrant at the home of James Daniel Good in Hawaii, discovering approximately 89 pounds of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.
- About six months later, Good pleaded guilty to a state charge of promoting a harmful drug.
- Good was sentenced to one year in jail, five years' probation, a $1,000 fine, and was required to forfeit $3,187 in cash found at the home to the state.
- Four and a half years after the drugs were found, Good was no longer living in the home but was renting it to tenants for $900 per month.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed an in rem civil forfeiture action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, seeking to forfeit Good's house and land.
- In an ex parte proceeding, a U.S. Magistrate Judge found probable cause for the forfeiture and issued a warrant authorizing the property's seizure.
- The Government seized the property without prior notice to Good or an adversary hearing.
- Good filed a claim for the property, arguing the seizure violated due process and the forfeiture action was untimely.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the Government and ordered the property forfeited.
- Good, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit held that the seizure violated the Due Process Clause but also ruled that the timeliness of the action depended on internal government reporting deadlines, and remanded the case.
- The United States, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States, which was granted.
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 Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibit the government in a civil forfeiture case from seizing real property without first providing the owner with notice and an opportunity to be heard, in the absence of exigent circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The seizure of real property under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) without prior notice and a hearing violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, unless exigent circumstances are present. The Court applied the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge. First, the private interest at stake—an individual's right to maintain control over their home and real property—is of historic and continuing importance. Second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation is unacceptably high in an ex parte proceeding, which offers little protection to innocent owners, and the government has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome. Third, the government's interest in seizing the property immediately is low because, unlike personal property that can be moved or concealed, real property is fixed. The government can protect its interests against sale or destruction through less intrusive means, such as filing a lis pendens, obtaining a restraining order, or securing search and arrest warrants.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The ex parte seizure of Good's real property did not violate the Due Process Clause. The Fourth Amendment's standards for a reasonable seizure should provide the full measure of process due in the forfeiture context, just as they do for the arrest of a person. Historical precedent has long sanctioned summary proceedings in civil forfeitures, including for real property, to collect revenue and enforce laws. The majority's decision wrongly departs from this settled law, misapplies the Mathews v. Eldridge test to a context with deep historical roots, and creates a paradoxical rule where a person can be deprived of liberty based on an ex parte probable cause determination, but property cannot be.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
No. The seizure of Good's property did not violate due process under the specific facts of this case. Precedent, such as Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., establishes that pre-deprivation notice is not required in forfeiture cases, and there is no constitutionally relevant distinction between real and personal property in this context. Applying the Mathews test to this case, the intrusion on Good's interest was minimal as he was not living on the property and his tenants were not evicted. Furthermore, a preseizure hearing would have little value where a magistrate had already found probable cause based on an affidavit detailing Good's prior drug conviction related to the property.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. Good was not deprived of due process of law under the facts of this case. While the breadth of modern civil forfeiture statutes is disturbing, the Court's broad new rule is an overreach that disregards precedent and the specific facts. Good is not an innocent owner but a convicted drug offender whose crime involved the property. For a convicted individual, seizure of the property without a separate preseizure hearing is a collateral consequence of the conviction. A preseizure hearing would serve no practical purpose, as the conviction itself provides notice and establishes a strong basis for the government's action.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the procedural due process rights of property owners in civil forfeiture cases involving real property. It establishes a clear default rule requiring a pre-seizure, adversarial hearing, forcing the government to justify its seizure before a court rather than acting ex parte. By distinguishing real property from movable personal property, the Court limited the scope of its prior holding in Calero-Toledo. This creates a higher procedural barrier for the government when seizing homes, land, and buildings, thereby offering greater protection against potentially erroneous or abusive forfeitures of immobile assets.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al.