United States v. Schifferli
1990 WL 10602, 895 F.2d 987 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Real property is subject to civil forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) if there is a substantial connection between the property and an underlying drug felony. A substantial connection exists if the property is used to commit or facilitate the commission of the offense, meaning it makes the crime less difficult or free from obstruction, even if the property also has legitimate uses.
Facts:
- Dr. H. Allan Schifferli owned a property in Aiken, South Carolina, which contained his dental office.
- Dr. Schifferli used this property to practice dentistry, sharing the premises with another dentist.
- From September 10, 1984, to June 21, 1985, Dr. Schifferli used his dentist office on over forty separate occasions to write illegal prescriptions for controlled substances.
- These prescriptions, written for at least eight different individuals, lacked a legitimate medical purpose.
- The use of the professional office provided an air of legitimacy to his illegal prescription-writing activities.
- Most of the related illegal acts, such as delivering the prescriptions and receiving payment, occurred off the premises.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Schifferli was convicted in a criminal trial of conspiracy and illegally distributing controlled substances in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
- Following the criminal conviction, the United States filed a separate in rem civil forfeiture action against Dr. Schifferli's office property in the same district court.
- Both the government and Dr. Schifferli moved for summary judgment in the forfeiture action.
- The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, finding the property was forfeitable, and denied Dr. Schifferli's motion.
- Dr. Schifferli, the claimant, appealed the district court's forfeiture order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
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 a professional office, used to write numerous illegal prescriptions over several months, have a 'substantial connection' to the underlying drug offenses sufficient to make it forfeitable under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7)?
Opinions:
Majority - Chapman, Circuit Judge
Yes. A professional office used to write numerous illegal prescriptions has a substantial connection to the underlying drug offenses and is forfeitable under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). The court held that the proper standard for forfeiture is the 'substantial connection' test, which requires more than an incidental or fortuitous connection between the property and the crime. The court rejected Dr. Schifferli's argument that the property must be 'indispensable' or an 'integral part' of the crime. Instead, the term 'facilitate' only requires that the property make the prohibited conduct less difficult or more free from obstruction. Here, Dr. Schifferli's dental office provided an air of legitimacy and protection from outside scrutiny, directly facilitating the crime of illegally dispensing controlled substances. The facts that the property had legitimate uses and that only a portion of the illegal acts occurred there do not defeat forfeiture, as a single felony drug violation is sufficient to trigger the statute.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and solidifies the 'substantial connection' test for civil forfeiture of real property under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). It broadens the application of the statute beyond properties used for storing or manufacturing drugs to include professional locations that lend an 'air of legitimacy' to a drug-related crime. The ruling establishes that the property need not be indispensable to the crime, nor must it be used exclusively for illegal purposes, significantly lowering the bar for the government to seize real property connected to drug offenses. This precedent makes it more difficult for property owners to defend against forfeiture by arguing the property's primary use was legitimate or that its role in the crime was not central.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Schifferli