Legal Opinion · Dissent

People Ex Rel. Devine v. $30,700.00 United States Currency

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 2002No. 90470Published

1DissentJustice Freeman

The majority holds that claimant, Rashawn Carter, received appropriate notice of the forfeiture proceedings at issue. I disagree. Due process requires the government to provide notice that is reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the forfeiture proceedings and afford the parties an opportunity to be heard. In the present case, the notice the State gave Rashawn fell far short of the requirements of due process.

BACKGROUND

On May 23, 1998, police officers responded to a tip that a man with a gun had entered the Drexel National Bank. Upon their arrival at the bank, the officers…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Dusenbery v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. Robinson v. HanrahanSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. United States v. GiraldoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
  5. United States v. One Toshiba Color Television Two Answering MacHines One Health Tech Computer Reginald McGlory in No. 98-3578 (Pursuant to Rule 12(a), f.r.a.p.) (d.c. Civ. No. 90-Cv-00138) United States of America v. Assorted Jewelry Reginald McGlory in No. 98-3579 (Pursuant to Rule 12(a), f.r.a.p.) (d.c. Civ. No. 90-Cv-00370)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API