Cases-

Mathew v. Eldridge
- Loss of Disabilitites – had lots of safeguards in place to prevent errors in making decision
such as expert medical records.

Jones v. Takaki –
- similar issues but about delay. Further, there was a maximum limit of 187 days which may
pass until the forfeiture hearing.
- Held: that the constitution does not req any procedure prior to the actual forfeiture hearing
itself and that the owners’ only claim was the delay in initiating the hearing.

U.S. v. Von Neumann

- Holding: owner property interest in his car did not give hikm a constitutional right to a
speedy disposition of his petition of remission without awaiting the forfeiture procedure.
- US customs seized Respondent’s vehicle in violation of the same statute in 8850 against
false declarations on customs forms.
- Respondent had the opportunity to both challenge the forfeiture at a hearing and to
request administrative mitigation.
US. v. James Daniel Good Real Property
- Respondent’s house was seized after police found drugs on property = violation of Hawaii
law. Good pleaded guilty yet the Ct still HELD – that absent exigent circumstances the due
process clause req the govt to afford notice and a meaningful opportunity to be hear
before seizing real property.
- Distinguishing – CT found significant govt financial bias
US v. 8850
- Held: No delay is presumptively improper
- Distinguishable because about delay and a customs case.
- Applied the Barker v. Wingo speedy trial test.
o length of delay
o govt justification for delay
o timing of property owner’s objection to the delay
o prejudice to owner caused by the delay

Barker v. Wingo
- Prisoner case who did not request a speedy trial.

Nnadi v. Richter
- P’s car was seized on suspicion of smuggling heroin. She received notice of forfeiture but
did not challenge for weeks. (Received notice in January but did not file claim until March.
- Held- P’s failure to timely challenge the forfeiture constituted a failure to assert her rights.
- Distinguished- 2 days after P filed, the govt took steps to obtain the hearing.

Calero- Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co

- govt seized yacht without notice because it was being used for drug trafficking.
Therefore, the owner did not challenge seizure and forfeiture . The govt had an interest
in securing the property for in rem proceedings.