Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado

United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-12-27
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Appellant Cadillac was forfeited on the ground that it had been used to facilitate transportation of illegally imported marihuana (19 U.S.C. § 1595a). The owner of the Cadillac had been tried and acquitted of the charge of transporting or facilitating the transportation of marihuana before the forfeiture proceeding had been commenced. (21 U.S.C. § 176a.) The facts upon which the charges against the owner were made were the same as those upon which the forfeiture proceeding depended. In Coffey v. United States (1886) 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 cited with approval in Ashe v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
8 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ONE 1967 CADILLAC EL DORADO,453 F.2d 396(9th Cir. 1971)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ONE 1967 CADILLAC EL
DORADO, SERIAL NO. H7135768, LICENSE NO. TVM 155, ITS TOOLS AND
APPURTENANCES, LEONAR DIXON, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 26269.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
December 27, 1971.
Jonathan K. Golden (argued), Burton Marks, of Marks, Sherman London, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.

Larry L. Dier, Asst. U.S. Atty., (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty. Chief, Civil Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before CHAMBERS and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR,fn*District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Appellant Cadillac was forfeited on the ground that it had been used to facilitate transportation of illegally imported marihuana (19 U.S.C. § 1595a). The owner of the Cadillac had been tried and acquitted of the charge of transporting or facilitating the transportation of marihuana before the forfeiture proceeding had been commenced. (21 U.S.C. § 176a.) The facts upon which the charges against the owner were made were the same as those upon which the forfeiture proceeding depended.

[2] In Coffey v. United States (1886)116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 cited with approval in Ashe v. Swenson (1970)397 U.S. 436, 443 n. 7, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469, the Supreme Court held that a prior judgment of acquittal of the owner of property forecloses a proceeding to forfeit that property when the operative facts of both the criminal and the forfeiture proceedings are the same. The conclusion follows from the combined impact of collateral estoppel and the double jeopardy clause. (See alsoUnited States v. U.S. Coin Currency (1971)401 U.S. 715, 721-722, 91 S.Ct. 1041, 28 L.Ed.2d 434; McKeehan v. United States (6th Cir. 1971)438 F.2d 739, 746-747.)

[3] The judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint.Page 397
  1. Hon. Fred M. Taylor, United States District Court Judge, Boise, Idaho, sitting by designation. ↩