United States v. Land Rover VIN SALLDHAB7BA293335
2:14-cv-02093
D.S.C.Jul 9, 2015Background
- On Jan 9, 2013 CBP seized two Land Rover Defenders at the Port of Charleston after inspections revealed missing/obscured VINs, non‑original engines, and other features inconsistent with the claimed model years and certification labels.
- Claimant Geoffrey Wattiker (pro se) sought administrative relief and exemptions (age/EPA) but CBP and NHTSA determined the vehicles were rebuilt/remanufactured within 25 years and not eligible for the claimed exemptions; supplemental petition was denied.
- EPA review found replacement engines and configurations not EPA‑certified and not “substantially similar,” undermining age exemptions; vehicles remained in CBP custody.
- The United States filed a civil forfeiture in rem under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1595a(c) and 1627a(a)(2) alleging importation contrary to law (safety/emissions noncompliance) and tampered/obliterated VINs.
- Wattiker moved to dismiss arguing failure to state a claim, statutory/pleading defects, prejudicial government delay (due process/laches), logical contradictions, and improper government motive/relationship with Land Rover.
- Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the motion: the verified Amended Complaint satisfied Supplemental Rule G’s identification and particularity requirements and the delay allegations did not amount to constitutional deprivation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pleading under Supplemental Rule G / Rule 12 | Amended complaint fails to identify applicable statutes/regulations and lacks particularized facts | Complaint identifies statutes (19 U.S.C. §§ 1595a, 1627a) and alleges detailed facts supporting probable proof at trial | Complaint satisfies Supp. R. G: statutes identified and facts sufficiently particularized; motion denied |
| Interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1627a (VIN element / "knowing" requirement) | §1627a requires knowledge that VIN was deliberately altered for forfeiture to apply | "Knowing" modifies importation, not the removal/alteration element; allegations of removed/altered VINs + attempted import suffice | Court adopts Government's reading; allegations state a §1627a claim |
| Delay / due process / laches (timeliness of Government filing) | Government unreasonably delayed prosecution, violating Fifth Amendment and statutes requiring prompt action | Administrative process, claimant's petitions, agency investigations (CBP, NHTSA, EPA) account for time; delay not prejudicial | No due process violation; timing reasonable in light of administrative proceedings and investigations |
| Government motive / reliance on manufacturer info (improper relationship) | Seizure motivated by improper NHTSA–Land Rover relationship; destruction goal improper | Agency consultation with manufacturer permissible, agency follows regulations; allegations speculative | Motive/relationship allegations speculative and irrelevant at pleading stage; do not support dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal standard for plausibility in Rule 12(b)(6))
- United States v. Mondragon, 313 F.3d 862 (4th Cir.) (Rule G requires particularity to permit meaningful investigation)
- United States v. $8,850 in U.S. Currency, 461 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court) (timing of forfeiture prosecution; administrative proceedings weigh in timing analysis)
- Calero‑Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leaving Co., 416 U.S. 663 (Supreme Court) (innocence of owner generally not a defense in in rem forfeitures)
- United States v. Davis, 648 F.3d 84 (2d Cir.) (CAFRA’s innocent‑owner defense excludes Title 19 forfeitures)
- United States v. Turner, 933 F.2d 240 (4th Cir.) (delay between seizure and filing did not violate due process)
- Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court) (statutory authority for vehicle standards and agency rulemaking)