United States v. Von Neumann

1986-01-14

Headline: Reverses appeals court: 36-day Customs delay in responding to remission petition did not violate due process, making judicial forfeiture the constitutional safeguard for people whose property is seized at the border.

Holding: The Court held that a 36-day delay by the Customs Service in answering a remission petition did not deprive the car owner of due process, and that a judicial forfeiture proceeding supplies the required post-seizure hearing.

Real World Impact:

Rules a 36-day agency delay did not violate due process rights.
Affirms that judicial forfeiture can provide the required post-seizure hearing.
Car owners may need to seek court action for faster relief.

Topics: customs seizures, due process, forfeiture, administrative delay, border property seizures

Summary

Background

A man who bought a 1974 Jaguar abroad failed to tell U.S. Customs when he re-entered the country. Customs seized the car on January 20, 1975. The owner filed a petition the same day asking the Treasury to reduce or cancel the forfeiture penalty. He posted a bond and got the car back on February 3. Customs formally acted on the petition 36 days after filing and reduced the penalty to $3,600. The owner challenged the delay in court after administrative appeals failed.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the 36-day delay denied the owner his constitutional right to due process. The majority explained that the administrative remission procedure is voluntary and not required by the Constitution, because a judicial forfeiture action can provide the post-seizure hearing the Constitution demands. The Court also found no clear prejudice from the 36-day wait and noted the owner had other procedural options to press for faster relief. For those reasons, the Court reversed the appeals court and held there was no due process violation on this record.

Real world impact

People whose property is seized at the border cannot automatically demand an immediate administrative answer to a remission petition under the Constitution. Affected owners can still seek faster relief by asking the government to start a forfeiture case or by going to court. This ruling does not forbid courts from reviewing unreasonable agency delay in other cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger would have decided whether the remission statute itself creates a protected property interest. Justice Stevens urged that the statute implies a duty to act diligently but agreed the 36-day delay was not unlawful here.