Lopez v. United States
863 F. Supp. 2d 127
D. Mass.2012Background
- In June 2009, the DEA seized approx. $30,790 in cash and jewelry from Lopez's apartment during an investigation of Pabon-Abadia, a suspected drug dealer; Lopez claims the property belonged to her.
- On August 3, 2009, the DEA notified Lopez of administrative forfeiture and deadlines to file a claim by September 7, 2009; notices were published in The Wall Street Journal on Aug 17, 24, and 31, 2009.
- Lopez, with counsel, mailed a claim and a petition for remission on September 4, 2009; the delivery attempted on a Saturday and the Labor Day holiday caused the DEA to receive the documents on September 8, 2009.
- The DEA deemed the claim untimely and administratively forfeited the property on October 15, 2009, subsequently denying remission and directing Lopez to pursue reconsideration procedures.
- Lopez filed a petition for remission in May 2011; the government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Lopez asserted a due process claim under the Fifth Amendment.
- The court held that the forfeiture was procedurally improper and void, denied the government's dismissal motion, and directed the government to return the property or initiate judicial forfeiture proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear a remission petition | Lopez asserts due process rights require review. | Gonzalez-Gonzalez framework shows no jurisdiction after administrative forfeiture. | Administrative forfeiture void; court may remedy procedural defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2001) (timely claim abrogates forfeiture and may trigger court proceedings)
- Sarit v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin., 987 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1993) (limits of judicial review after administrative forfeiture)
- United States v. Giraldo, 45 F.3d 509 (1st Cir. 1995) (court may order return or commence judicial forfeiture when deficient)
- Toure v. United States, 24 F.3d 444 (2d Cir. 1994) (procedural deficiencies allow correction by court)
- Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., 209 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000) (leniency to pro se pleadings but jurisdiction must be established)
- Bank One, Texas N.A. v. Montle, 964 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1992) (burden of proving subject-matter jurisdiction)