Rendering Illegal Behavior Unprofitable: Vehicle Forfeiture under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act
![handle is hein.journals/creigh8 and id is 491 raw text is:
RENDERING ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR UNPROFITABLE:
VEHICLE FORFEITURE UNDER THE UNIFORM
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
But whether the reason for [the forfeiture] be artificial or real,
it is too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence
of this country to be now displaced.'
INTRODUCTION
When certain kinds of property are used in the commission of
a crime or as an instrumentality of a crime, they may be subject
to seizure and forfeiture to the government. Yet neither the fact
of the crime nor the participation of the owner of the property
may be critical to the forfeiture. The property may be beneficial
in its own right and its owner never aware of the illegal use, and
the forfeiture will attach.
While forfeitures in this country apply to many types of crim-
inal behavior,2 their prominence in the courts often has been the
result of their role in coping with the peculiar vice of the age.
Whether it be piratical aggression,3 the operation of home-made
distilleries,4 violations of the noble experiment against the evil
drink,5 or, most recently, the problem of drug abuse,6 forfeitures
have provided the criminal law with a regulatory complement to
render certain kinds of activity not only punishable, but also un-
profitable.
Forfeiture is a legal hybrid of civil and criminal penalties al-
most impervious to constitutional challenge. Despite an uncertain
1. J.W. Goldsmith Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 510-
511 (1921), as cited in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 94 S.
Ct. 2080, 2093 (1974).
2. While this article will emphasize forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881
involving controlled substances, other important forfeiture laws may be
found in 49 U.S.C. § 781 (1970) (narcotic drugs, firearms, counterfeit coins),
26 U.S.C. § 7302 (1970) (property used to violate the provisions of the inter-
nal revenue laws), and 19 U.S.C. § 1595a (1970) (unlawful importation of
articles in the United States).
3. See United States v. Brig Malek Adhel, 43 U.S. 209 (1844); The
Palmyra, 25 U.S. 1 (1827).
4. See United States v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1 (1890); Dobbins's Distill-
ery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395 (1877).
5. See United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile, 272 U.S. 321
(1926). See generally, Black, Some Prohibition Forfeiture Cases-The Doc-
trine of Vicarious Liability, 78 PA. L. REv. 518 (1930).
6. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 94 S. Ct. 2080 (1974).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/creigh8&div=43&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Rendering Illegal Behavior Unprofitable: Vehicle Forfeiture under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most