United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 43 (1993)

Page:   Index   Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43

Cite as: 510 U. S. 43 (1993)

Opinion of Thomas, J.

sented to us for review.4 Moreover, when, as here, ambitious modern statutes and prosecutorial practices have all but detached themselves from the ancient notion of civil forfeiture, I prefer to go slowly. While I sympathize with the impulses motivating the Court's decision, I disagree with the Court's due process analysis. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

85

4 "Whether the seizure of the respondent real property for forfeiture, pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate judge based on a finding of probable cause, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because the owner (who did not reside on the premises) was not given notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the seizure." Pet. for Cert. I.

Page:   Index   Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43

Last modified: October 4, 2007