1970 Mercury Cougar, et al. v. Tunica County
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-00175-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-22-2006 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Civil forfeiture - Delay in initiating procedures Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: 2000-00080 Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-08-2005 Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Disposition: TUNICA COUNTY’S PETITION FOR FORFEITURE GRANTED. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ONE 1970 MERCURY COUGAR, VIN#0F9111545940, ONE 1992 FORD MUSTANG, VIN#FACP44E4NF173360, ONE FORD MUSTANG AND $355.00 U.S. CURRENCY |
WILLIE HAMPTON, PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | TUNICA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI | CHARLES BUCKLEY GRAVES | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Civil forfeiture - Delay in initiating procedures |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tunica County filed a forfeiture action nine days after Willie Hampton was arrested. Nearly five years later, the circuit court awarded Tunica County the property it sought. Hampton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hampton argues that the County’s delay in prosecuting a timely filed forfeiture action constitutes a denial of Hampton’s due process rights. After the County served Hampton with process, the County took no action until it requested a stay of discovery eight months later. Where forfeiture must be initiated while criminal proceedings are concurrently taking place, a criminal defendant has an incentive to use civil discovery tools to question law enforcement personnel regarding the details of their criminal cases. Therefore, it is not unusual for civil forfeiture actions to be continued until after the underlying criminal proceedings are concluded. Nevertheless, a continued forfeiture action must be timely concluded, and an unreasonable delay will constitute a denial of due process. In United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars in United State Currency, 461 U.S. 555 (1983), the Supreme Court adopted the Barker v. Wingo factors as the appropriate test to determine whether a delay in initiating forfeiture proceedings constitutes a Fourteenth Amendment violation. The factors are the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the claimant’s assertion of his rights, and prejudice to the defendant. In this case, the circuit court stayed the civil proceedings until after resolution of the federal criminal proceedings. However, the record is silent as to when the criminal proceedings concluded. The length of delay is substantial. However, the record is silent as to the reason for the delay. Hampton failed to assert any claim for a speedy resolution until January 31, 2005. The record is silent as to how the delay prejudiced Hampton’s ability to defend the action. Given the sparse record, the case is reversed and remanded in order to allow the parties to present a record that would allow analysis under the Barker standards. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
