United States v. 1996 Freightliner Fld Tractor VIN 1FUYDXYB0TP822291
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4750
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Regalado was convicted of drug possession with intent to distribute after transporting marijuana hidden under rotten tomatoes.
- Prior to trial, the government seized Regalado’s truck and refrigerated trailer for forfeiture and he filed timely ownership/bailee claims.
- After conviction, the government filed a complaint for forfeiture; Regalado claimed the government’s filing was untimely.
- Statutory framework ties forfeiture procedures to 18 U.S.C. § 983 and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) governing conveyances used to transport controlled substances.
- Two time limits exist: 90 days under § 983(a)(3) and a 60-day regulation under 21 C.F.R. § 1316.97; the regulation requires a cost bond.
- Regalado did not file a cost bond; the district court ruled for the government on timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which time limit governs forfeiture complaints? | Regalado | Regalado | 90-day limit governs |
| Does lack of a cost bond affect timeliness under the 60-day rule? | Regalado | Regalado | Cost bond absence makes 60-day rule inapplicable |
| Does CAFRA repeal supersede the regulation's 60-day limit? | Regalado | Regalado | Statute controls; regulation may be superfluous |
| Are CAFRA provisions compatible with the forfeiture statute used? | Regalado | Regalado | CAFRA governs; 90-day period applies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. 144,774 Pounds of Blue King Crab, 410 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2005) (CAFRA applicability to civil forfeiture procedures)
- United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1954) (regulations must be followed as issued)
- United States v. Doe, 701 F.2d 819 (9th Cir. 1983) (statute controls when regulation conflicts)
- United States v. Maes, 546 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (Accardi doctrine and regulatory authority)