§

19 U.S.C. § 1615

Section 1615 - Burden of proof in forfeiture proceedings
Section 1615 - Burden of proof in forfeiture proceedings

4 Citing briefs

  1. United States of America v. One Gulfstream G-V Jet Aircraft

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss Verified First Amended Complaint For Forfeiture In Rem

    Filed January 6, 2014

    Judge Wilson’s careful analysis of CAFRA is particularly persuasive. In United States v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, Judge Wilson closely examined CAFRA and held that the probable cause requirement codified in 19 U.S.C. § 1615 survived CAFRA—a conclusion that was confirmed by the Ninth Circuit, although the circuit reversed the district court’s determination that the government had sufficient probable cause. 527 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1116- 19 (C.D. Cal. 2007) rev’d and remanded, 590 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2010) (reiterating that probable cause survived CAFRA, but reversing the district court’s ruling that the government Case 1:11-cv-01874-RC Document 36 Filed 01/06/14 Page 20 of 28 16 had met its probable cause burden).

  2. United States of America v. One White Crystal Covered Bad Tour Glove and Other Michael Jackson Memorabilia

    REPLY in opposition to motion for summary judgment MOTION for Summary Judgment as to SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LIMITED ISSUE OF PROBABLE CAUSE; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ORDER FINDING THE GOVERNMENT LACKED PROBABLE CAUSE AT THE TIME IT INSTITUTED THE ACTION FOR FORFEITURE IN REM 78 Supplemental Reply

    Filed August 9, 2013

    Fourth, Claimants’ arguments have no foundation in the statutory text. Title 19 requires only that “probable cause shall be first shown for the institution of such suit or action . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1615. Nothing in that language even hints that Congress intended to require the Government to plead all of its actionable claims in its initial pleadings, let alone prohibit courts from granting the Government leave to amend its pleadings, as the Court permitted the Government to do here.2 ECF No. 47.

  3. United States of America v. 3 Knife-Shaped Coins et al

    Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Filed August 22, 2016

    ACCG 1 Appeal, 698 F.3d at 184. But the Fourth Circuit noted that the Guild’s argument about coin circulation “is not the whole story,” and still echoed the need for the Guild to “press a particularized challenge to 4 The government has argued that the evidentiary standards of 19 U.S.C. § 1615, which would allow the use of any admissible evidence or testimony to contest forfeiture, do not apply in this case because 19 U.S.C. §§ 2602, 2604, and 2606 specify the evidence permitted in a forfeiture case under the CPIA. See, e.g., ECF No. 55 at 5--7.

  4. United States of America v. One White Crystal Covered Bad Tour Glove and Other Michael Jackson Memorabilia

    REPLY in support of MOTION to Dismiss Case 31

    Filed March 26, 2012

    See United States v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, 590 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The probable cause requirement is statutory. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1615, . . . the government must show that probable cause exists to institute its action. We recently held that this requirement survived the enactment of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.”)