Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DAVID W. HARRIS v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION * * * Civil No. JFM-00-3716 * * * ***** MEMORANDUM

On May 14, 1999, $1,121.00 in currency was seized from plaintiff by officers of the Maryland State Police. After a request for adoption was prepared and submitted to the Drug Enforcement Administration, the seizure was adopted by the DEA on June 4, 1999. Forfeiture proceedings against the property were then instituted. The administrative proceedings resulted in the forfeiture of the $1,121.00 to the United States. Thereafter, plaintiff instituted this action against the United States Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") seeking release of the currency to him. After the DEA filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff amended his claim for relief to request an order vacating the agency forfeiture order and directing the agency to reopen the administrative proceedings. Finding that the notice given by the DEA of the forfeiture proceedings complied with statutory and constitutional requirements, I will grant the DEA's motion to dismiss. I. According to a police report submitted by the DEA in support of its motion to dismiss, on May 14, 1999, plaintiff was stopped for a traffic violation. He was subsequently arrested for a rental agreement violation. A search incident to his arrest revealed a controlled dangerous substance, a

concealed weapon (said by plaintiff to be a "dirk" knife), and the $1,121.00. In his complaint (originally filed in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore County and then removed to this court by the DEA), plaintiff alleges that he "proved" that the currency was the result of his cashing two paychecks. II. The Fourth Circuit has squarely held that "once the Government initiates forfeiture proceedings, the district court is divested of jurisdiction." The court remains without jurisdiction during the pendency of the proceeding unless the claimant, by timely filing a claim and cost bond or request to proceed in forma pauperis, triggers an obligation on the part of the Government to institute. Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 475-76 (4th Cir. 1997). Once an administrative forfeiture proceeding has been completed, district courts retain jurisdiction only to "determine compliance with due process or procedural requirements." Ibarra, 120 F.3d at 475, n.4 (citing authorities). Here, plaintiff claims that he received inadequate notice of the administrative forfeiture proceeding. The notice requirements in forfeiture cases are set forth in 19 U.S.C.

Download David W. Harris v Drug Enforcement Administration.pdf

Maryland Law