United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property

Summary

Justice Kennedy's opinion held that compliance with the Fourth Amendment does not displace procedural due process protections in civil forfeiture proceedings and that, absent exigent circumstances, the Government must provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property. The Court unanimously held that noncompliance with the internal timing directives in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1602–1604 does not require dismissal of a forfeiture action filed within the five-year limitations period. It affirmed the Ninth Circuit's due process ruling, reversed its timeliness ruling, and remanded. Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Scalia and, for Parts II and III, Justice O'Connor, argued that historical practice and existing constitutional safeguards permitted the seizure. Justice O'Connor separately accepted the Mathews framework but concluded that Good's prior conviction, the seizure warrant, and the limited interference with possession established adequate process. Justice Thomas likewise found no violation on these facts, while expressing concern about the breadth of modern civil forfeiture laws. Each separate opinion concurred in the timeliness holding and dissented from the due process holding.