Forfeiture – Claim of ownership – Oath

Listen to this article

Where the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) rejected both of the pro se claimant’s attempts to file a sworn claim of ownership to a seized 2006 Land Rover Range Rover vehicle as invalid on the basis that her claim was not “made under oath, subject to penalty of perjury,” the declaration of forfeiture is void because the language in her first submission met the statutory requirement.

Thus, the DEA must return the property to the claimant or begin judicial forfeiture proceedings.

“The question is whether the government deprived [claimant Jeanine] Jackson of a ‘fair chance’ to present her claim by rejecting her submission as invalid. Under 18 U.S.C. section983(a)(2)(C), Jackson’s submission was required to: ‘(i) identify the specific property being claimed; (ii) state the claimant’s interest in such property; and (iii) be made under oath, subject to penalty of perjury.’ The government argues that her submissions failed to meet the third requirement because they were not made under penalty of perjury. …

“Jackson’s first submission began with the statement: ‘kindly accept this notice as my official request to claim my property.’ … Jackson then identified the vehicle at issue and stated that she was the vehicle owner. Below her signature and above the notary’s signature was a line that stated: ‘Sworn to before me this 23 day of February 2012.’

“One court of appeals has found such language by itself sufficient to support a perjury conviction. …

“Other courts have found statements to be validly sworn given a similar lack of formalities. …

“To be sure, some cases do contain more extensive language concerning the taking of an oath. …

“But when taking into consideration that Jackson was filing pro se, the Court concludes that Jackson’s first submission contained language sufficient to meet the

statutory requirement of being made under penalty of perjury. Moreover, the language in that submission that it was ‘my official request to claim my property’ (emphasis added) was a crystal clear statement that Jackson was making a ‘claim’ rather than a petition for ‘remission’ or ‘mitigation.’ … As such, the declaration of forfeiture is void and the DEA must ‘return the [property] to [Jackson] or … begin judicial forfeiture in the district court.’ …”

United States v. Jones, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-050-17) (8 pages) (Saris, C.J.) (Crim. No. 12-10084-PBS) (Jan. 31, 2017).

Click here for the full-text opinion.