Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Dusenbery v. U.S. | 534 U.S. 161 (2002)
The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the federal government and state governments from depriving persons of property without due process of law. Additionally, as part of due process, persons are entitled to be heard and notified of pending matters affecting their rights. In the 2002 case Dusenbery versus United States, the United States Supreme Court considered what the government must do to provide adequate notice to a person under the Due Process Clause of a pending forfeiture of property.
In April of 1986, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI, officers arrested Larry Dusenbery at a house trailer in Atwater, Ohio, and charged him with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. Following his arrest, officers obtained and executed a search warrant and seized drugs, drug paraphernalia, firearms, a knife, a car registered to Dusenbery’s stepmother, and items of personal property. Among the items seized was nearly forty-four thousand dollars in cash.
Ten months later, Dusenbery pleaded guilty in federal district court to the charges and was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. Two years later, the United States obtained a court order authorizing the FBI to destroy Dusenbery’s firearms and knife. The FBI also began the process of administratively forfeiting the cash and car.
At the time, the FBI could, under certain conditions, dispose of property seized under the Controlled Substances Act, or CSA, without initiating court proceedings. The FBI sent written notice of the pending forfeiture by certified mail to Dusenbery, care of the Federal Correction Institution in Milan, Michigan, where he was incarcerated. In addition, the FBI mailed notice of the forfeiture to the addresses where Dusenbery was arrested and his mother lived. Notice of the forfeiture was also published in a local newspaper for three weeks. When the FBI didn’t receive a response, the FBI declared the items forfeited.
In 1993, Dusenbery filed a motion in federal district court under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, seeking the return of all seized assets. The court denied the motion, and Dusenbery appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case.
Following discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court found that the government’s sending of notice by certified mail to Dusenbery’s place of incarceration satisfied his due-process rights as to the cash. Dusenbery appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
