In April 1986, the FBI arrested Larry Dean Dusenbery in his home. After the FBI
ID: 394047 • Letter: I
Question
In April 1986, the FBI arrested Larry Dean Dusenbery in his home. After the FBI removed Dusenbery from the premises and placed him in custody, it obtained and executed a search warrant for his property. During the search, FBI agents seized drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons, an automobile, and $21,939 in currency. Dusenbery pleaded guilty to a charge of possession with intent to distribute. The trial court sentenced him to 12 years in prison and a 6-year special parole. Two years later, the FBI began administratively to forfeit the seized possessions. This process required the FBI to send written notice of the forfeiture procedures to Dusenbery. The FBI, in accordance with this policy, sent letters to Dusenbery by certified mail to the federal corrections institution where he was incarcerated. The FBI sent identical letters to his home address and his mother's address. The FBI received no response but nevertheless proceeded with the forfeiture of his assets. Five years later, Dusenbery filed a motion requesting the FBI to return his property to him. He received a response from the U.S. government informing him that the FBI had returned all property not used in the drug business and had forfeited the rest of it. Dusenbery filed a civil suit claiming that the FBI denied his right of due process when it forfeited his property because he had never received the letter from the FBI. The district court ruled that the FBI had not violated his due process rights; the FBI satisfied his rights when it sent the notice. How do you think the appellate court ruled in this case? Why? [Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002).]
Explanation / Answer
As per the given case, FBI had arrested the alleged drug dealer Larry Dean Dusenbery, from his home. After taking him to the custody, FBI conducted an intense search of his house (after getting the search warrant) and seized some of the objectionable items such as drugs, drug paraphernalia and weapons. Based on his involvement and nature of crime, Trial court sentenced him to 12 years of imprisonment. After his imprisonment, FBI began the formalities to forfeit the seized possessions after two years, while intimating the same to his family and to him as well, before proceeding for the same. Five years later, Larry Dean Dusenbery filed a case against the FBI, for not informing him before forfeiting his possessions as per the law and also informed the court that he had not received any formal letter from FBI, before they could start the forfeiting of the possessions.
As per the response from US government, BI had returned all his assets, which were irrelevant with the case and were his personal property, but Larry Dean Dusenbery was not happy with the response and charged FBI of not following the due procedure (he pleaded not to receive any letter from FBI), in the court of law.
Considering the above case, it’s very clear that FBI had followed the due procedure in this case but at the same time it was quite appalling to know that accused Larry Dean Dusenbery had not received any letter as such. Not receiving the letter could be a lacuna in this entire series of events but FBI cannot be held liable of violating any norms from their side. Taking cognizance of the same, court also ruled in the favor of FBI and closed the case stating that there cannot be any charge against the FBI for any legal violation.
Hence summarizing the above case, it is quite clear that FBI cannot be held accountable of violating any due procedure or norms in this case and court’s decision is totally justified and in accordance with the law, after considering all the evidences pertaining to this case.