599 F. Supp. 818 | E.D. Mo. | 1984
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
ONE 1976 FORD F-150 PICK-UP VIN F14YUB03797, Defendant.
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division.
Joseph B. Moore, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
Ronald Kaden, Shaw, Howlett & Schwartz, Clayton, Mo., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM
WANGELIN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for a decision following a trial on the merits. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1355 and Title 21 U.S.C. § 881. In accordance with Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Any Finding of Fact equally applicable as a Conclusion of Law is adopted as such and, conversely, any Conclusion of Law equally applicable as a Finding of Fact is adopted as such.
1. The defendant herein is a truck, The vehicle type is a pick-up, Alleged by a fed To be found in a bed Of marijuana, caught in the muck. 2. On August 16, '82, In Perry County, Missouri, who Should appear But claimant Hudson with gear As a one-man pot-tending crew. 3. Claimant drove defendant that day With tools to care for his Illegal hay. He was observed by the fed Placing metal by a shed Where other tools of his trade would stay. 4. The claimant's arrest was then made, Tis illegal, after all, his trade, And defendant was seized With comparative ease By the government, with which it has stayed. 5. Claimant now wants his truck back And he bases his legal attack On the grounds that defendant Though found in pot fields resplendent Was not used as an illegal hack. 6. While tis true that not one plant or seed Could be found on defendant, indeed, Claimant's argument is tissue For the dispositive issue Is did defendant facilitate the deed? 7. In the U.S. versus One Cadillac,[1] The Second Circuit addressed this attack, And those judges renowned Eventually found, Claimant's assertion misread law and fact. 8. They gave "facilitate" a wide definition, These jurists of great erudition, They found that seizure was proper, Now here's the heart-stopper, *819 If the truck in any manner facilitates the illegal condition. 9. In Cadillac, as in the case at bar, Defendant just transported men near and far, But this was sufficient To make claimant's trade more efficient And therefore justified seizing the car. 10. Thus the Cadillac case this Court will follow, Renders claimant's contention hard to swallow, And the Court will now render Judgment against the defender Because claimant's contentions are hollow. 11. Now the moral in this case 'bout the truck, Is easy, in case you are stuck, If in an illegal endeavor A vehicle is used whatsoever, Then, my friend, you are clear out of luck.JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff shall have judgment against defendant on plaintiff's complaint.
NOTES
[1] United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421 (2nd Cir.1977).
