The Court of Appeals began its analysis by noting that, under federal law, all funds furnished in exchange for controlled substances are subject to forfeiture to the United States. 21 U.S. Code § 881(a)(6). In addition, federal courts have original jurisdiction over any action for the enforcement of any forfeiture incurred under federal law. 28 U.S. Code § 1355.

This is due process. The Eighth Circuit had a case like this more than 20 years ago, Madewell v. Downs, 68 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 1995), which said seizures like this do not violate due process since the plaintiff can deal with the seizure afterwards under certain procedural rules, 21 U.S.C. 881 and 18 U.S.C. 981. Madewell is now the law in this Circuit, as well.

(21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §2). Moreover, there are other federal statutes that can result in criminal or civil penalties for engaging or supporting cannabis manufacture, production or sales, including: 18 U.S.C. §371 (conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a schedule I controlled substance), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (conspiracy to participate in a pattern of racketeering activity) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) (civil asset forfeiture). The Sessions Memo does not eliminate prosecutorial discretion.

Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993) The Eighth Amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. §881. The Eighth Amendment is not limited to criminal cases – it applies to any form of punishment and civil forfeiture amounts to punishment.

Also under federal law, all real property used in any manner to commit a violation of the Controlled Substances Act is subject to forfeiture. 21 U.S.C. §881(a)(7).[1] In a recent case, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado held that cause exists to dismiss a chapter11 bankruptcy case where a debtor derived a substantial portion of its revenue from leasing warehouse space to tenants who were engaged in growing marijuana.

The property is also subject to forfeiture. (See 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7).) The crack-house statute, however, was drafted hurriedly and quite broadly.

State v. Walter A. Kirch, 222 Wis. 2d 598, 587 N.W.2d 919 (Ct. App. 1998) For Kirch: Timothy J. GaskellIssue/Holding:The federal courts continue to consider possession, title, control and financial stake when determining ownership under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). … We therefore consider these factors when determining ownership for the purposes of § 973.075(1)(b)2, Stats.While Sharon Kirch is listed on the Chevrolet Suburban’s title as the owner, she had no financial stake in the truck, because the truck was purchased entirely by Walter.