State v. Northwest Corner of Block 18, C.H. Fisher Subdivision

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Northwest Corner of Block 18, C.H. Fisher Subdivision

588 So. 2d 702, 1991 WL 223169

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 1, 1991

DocketNo. 91-CC-2177

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 588 So. 2d 702 (State v. Northwest Corner of Block 18, C.H. Fisher Subdivision) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Northwest Corner of Block 18, C.H. Fisher Subdivision, 588 So. 2d 702, 1991 WL 223169 (La. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The warrantless seizure for forfeiture under non-exigent circumstances of the applicant’s land, residence, and business was unreasonable as a matter of La.R.S. 40:2606(B), and may have violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the absence of notice and an opportunity to be heard. See United States v. Premises and Real Property at 4492 South Livonia Road, 889 F.2d 1258 (2nd Cir.1989), rehrg. denied, 897 F.2d 659 (2nd Cir.1990). The land, residence, and business are there fore released to the applicant pending a hearing on the merits of the state’s forfeiture petition. The vehicles, the currency, the certificates of deposit, and the food stamps were properly seized without a warrant, if probable cause for forfeiture existed, to avoid the loss, concealment or destruction of the movable property pending the filing of, and hearing on, the state’s forfeiture petition. Without deciding whether good cause has existed for the protracted delay of the forfeiture hearing in this case, we note that the legislature has not expressly provided for the immunization of property from forfeiture for the violation of any provision in La.R.S. 40:2601, et seq. All of relator’s property remains subject to seizure and forfeiture, La.R.S. 40:2611(B), and we remand this case to the district court for an expedited hearing on the merits of the state’s forfeiture petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The warrantless seizure for forfeiture under non-exigent circumstances of the applicant’s land, residence, and business was unreasonable as a matter of La.R.S. 40:2606(B), and may have violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the absence of notice and an opportunity to be heard. See United States v. Premises and Real Property at 4492 South Livonia Road, 889 F.2d 1258 (2nd Cir.1989), rehrg. denied, 897 F.2d 659 (2nd Cir.1990). The land, residence, and business are there fore released to the applicant pending a hearing on the merits of the state’s forfeiture petition. The vehicles, the currency, the certificates of deposit, and the food stamps were properly seized without a warrant, if probable cause for forfeiture existed, to avoid the loss, concealment or destruction of the movable property pending the filing of, and hearing on, the state’s forfeiture petition. Without deciding whether good cause has existed for the protracted delay of the forfeiture hearing in this case, we note that the legislature has not expressly provided for the immunization of property from forfeiture for the violation of any provision in La.R.S. 40:2601, et seq. All of relator’s property remains subject to seizure and forfeiture, La.R.S. 40:2611(B), and we remand this case to the district court for an expedited hearing on the merits of the state’s forfeiture petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 So. 2d 702, 1991 WL 223169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-northwest-corner-of-block-18-ch-fisher-subdivision-la-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack