United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we believe that by lending the mercedes to , abandoned any legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched and thus may not now contest the legality of the search.”
45 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Blaze (ca10, 1998-05-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Blaze
10th Cir. · 1998 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we believe that by lending the mercedes to , abandoned any legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched and thus may not now contest the legality of the search.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (PC) Wilson v. Tuolomne County
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
The Ninth Circuit has reversed dismissals where the applicability of the equitable tolling 1 City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1277 (9th Cir. 1993); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 2 1190, 1199 (9th Cir. 1988); Donoghue v. Orange County, 848 F.2d 926, 931 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 “Section 1983 and most related federal civil rights statutes have no independent statute of 4 limitations.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andy LaShawn Fortner v. Lake County Jail (2×)
N.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 2 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (PC) Leonard v. CSP-Sacramento (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Sherman, 656 F.2d at 528 ; cf. Mann v. Adams, 846 F.2d 2 589, 590-91 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (concluding mail from public agencies, public officials, 3 civil rights groups, and news media may be opened outside the prisoner’s presence in light of 4 security concerns).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. Saul
S.D. Cal. · 2022 · confidence medium
Desrosiers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 2 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Coy v. Southern Home Care Services, Inc.
E.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 2 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 3 B.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kiles v. Shinn
D. Ariz. · 2020 · confidence medium
Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 2 249, 252 (4th Cir. 1988) (holding that even documents specifically covered by a protective 3 order during discovery must be unsealed, absent an overriding interest, when attached to a 4 dispositive motion). 5 From a cursory review of the materials (Exs. 149–180), it is apparent that at least 6 some of the attorney-client communications at issue would be protected by the Ninth 7 Circuit’s holding in Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 716 (9th Cir. 2003), which 8 precludes the use of privileged or confidential information disclosed in federa…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) KWANZAA v. TELL
D.N.J. · 2020 · confidence medium
In United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1988), the Second Circuit held that a car’s owner “abandoned any legitimate expectation of privacy[,]” by lending their car to another person. 846 F.2d at 4.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bohannon
D. Conn. · 2014 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, VIN WDBEA30D2GA143459, 846 F.2d 2, 4 (2d Cir.1988) (“We believe that by lending the Mercedes to [driver], [owner] abandoned any legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched and thus may not now contest the legality of the search.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
2d Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. 15 Black Ledge Drive, 897 F.2d 97 , 101 (2d Cir.1990) (Black Ledge Drive); Livonia Rd., 889 F.2d at 1267 ; United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2, 4 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Daccarett
unknown court · 1993 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. 15 Black Ledge Drive, 897 F.2d 97 , 101 (2d Cir.1990) (Black Ledge Drive); Livonia Rd., 889 F.2d at 1267 ; United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2, 4 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. All Right, Title & Interest in Five Parcels of Real Property
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · confidence medium
United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2, 4 (2d Cir.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. $70,000 United States Currency
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · confidence medium
In United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2, 5 (2d Cir.1988), an appeal from a bench trial, the court affirmed the district court’s determination that a vehicle was forfeitable pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(4) based on evidence that the Mercedes was used to transport a small quantity of marijuana.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. All, Right, Title & Interest in Real Property & Appurtenances Thereto Known as 785 St. Nicholas Ave. & 789 St. Nicholas Ave.
2d Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
See, e.g., 15 Black Ledge Drive, 897 F.2d at 101; 38 Whalers Cove Drive, 954 F.2d at 32-34 (two cocaine sales totalling $250 sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for forfeiture of $68,000 interest in condominium); United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2, 5 (2d Cir.1988) (noting that transportation of minute quantity of drugs may suffice to merit forfeiture of vehicle).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Allen v. Tucker
E.D. Mo. · 1989 · confidence medium
One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d at 4; One 1964 Beechcraft Baron, 691 F.2d at 727 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Gomez (2×)
unknown court · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2, 4 (2d Cir.1988) (“We believe that by lending the Mercedes to Chow, Parker abandoned any legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched and thus may not now contest the legality of the search.” (citing United States v. One 1977 Mer cedes Benz, 708 F.2d 444 , 449-50 (9th Cir.1983)); see also Knecht v. United States, No. 95 Civ. 7796, 1996 WL 54318 , at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. One 1984 Chevrolet Corvette, Vin 1G1AY0782E5124671
D. Kan. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2, 4 (2nd Cir.1988) (Owner lacked a privacy interest in car because it had been borrowed on previous occasions by the same individual without restrictions on where or with whom he could go).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Leasehold Interest in 121 Nostrand Avenue
E.D.N.Y · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2 , 4-5 (2d Cir.1988) (forfeiture may be predicated on a minute quantity of drugs); One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado, 548 F.2d 421, 425 (same); United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 38 Whalers Cove Drive, Babylon, New York, 747 F.Supp. 173, 176 (E.D.N.Y.1990) (evidence of two drug sales supported forfeiture of home).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Certain Real Property & Premises Known as 38 Whalers Cove Drive
E.D.N.Y · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See South Livonia Road, 889 F.2d at 1269 -70 and United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2 , 5 (2d Cir.1988).
cited Cited "see, e.g." NY Civil Liberties Union v. NYCTA.
2d Cir. · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 2 249, 253-54 (4th Cir. 1988); In re Continental Ill.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Vizcarra
D. Ariz. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2 , 3 (2nd Cir.1988); United States v. Dall, 608 F.2d 910, 915 (1st Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 445 U.S. 918 , 100 S.Ct. 1280 , 63 L.Ed.2d 603 (1980) (owner surrendered expectation of privacy when owner loaned vehicle to third person); United States v. Dyar, 574 F.2d 1385, 1390 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 982 , 99 S.Ct. 570 , 58 L.Ed.2d 653 (1978) (lessees of aircraft abandoned any expectation of privacy when they surrendered possession to a third person).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 38 Whalers Cove Drive, Babylon, New York, Edward J. Levin, Claimant-Appellant
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2 , 5 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. All Right, Title & Interest in Property & Premises
S.D.N.Y. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2 , 4-5 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam) (forfeiture may be predicated on a minute quantity of drugs).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
2d Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2 , 4-5 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam) (forfeiture may be predicated on a minute quantity of drugs).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. 4492 South Livonia Road
2d Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 846 F.2d 2 , 4-5 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam) (forfeiture may be predicated on a minute quantity of drugs).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. One Hundred & Thirty-Four Thousand, Seven Hundred & Fifty-Two Dollars United States Currency
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. One 1986 Mercedes Benz, 660 F.Supp. 410 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 846 F.2d 2 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam) ($2,710 seized from car containing marijuana cigarette after subjects of an on-going drug investigation got into car after leaving house where DEA agents had earlier purchased a large quantity of heroin); United States v. $2,500 in United States Currency, 689 F.2d 10 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, sub nom, Aponte v. United States, 465 U.S. 1099 , 104 S.Ct. 1591 , 80 L.Ed.2d 123 (1984) (defendant found with $2,500 cash, surveillance revealed no other apparent explanatio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
One 1986 Mercedes Benz, Vin Wdbea30d2ga143459, and $2,710.00 in U.S. Currency, and Cynthia Parker, Defendants-In-Rem and Claimant-Appellant
974.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 2, 1988.
846 F.2d 2
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

846 F.2d 2

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ONE 1986 MERCEDES BENZ, VIN WDBEA30D2GA143459, and $2,710.00
in U.S. Currency, and Cynthia Parker,
Defendants-in-Rem and Claimant-Appellant.

No. 974, Docket 87-6160.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued April 18, 1988.
Decided May 2, 1988.

Benjamin Sneed, New York City, (Pope Billups & Sneed, of counsel), for defendants-in-rem and claimant-appellant.

Sarah Thomas-Gonzalez, New York City, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., for S.D. New York (Rudolph W. Giuliani, U.S. Atty., for S.D. New York, Richard W. Mark, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, MESKILL and PIERCE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~2]1

Cynthia Parker appeals from a judgment of forfeiture of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Peter K. Leisure, J., entered May 28, 1987 following a bench trial, forfeiting to the United States one 1986 Mercedes Benz, VIN WDBEA30D2GA143459. The district court determined that the government had probable cause to seize the Mercedes and that Parker had failed to established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Mercedes was not used to transport a controlled substance--namely, a small quantity of marijuana--and therefore the vehicle was forfeitable pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(4). For the reasons given below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

2

The relevant facts of this case, which are described in greater detail in the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, reported at 660 F.Supp. 410 (S.D.N.Y.1987), are as follows. In June 1986, United States Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") agents were conducting a surveillance at 42 West 128th Street, in New York City, when they observed the Mercedes run a red light. The Mercedes was driving in tandem with a Jeep Laredo and the agents concluded that the Jeep was " 'shotgunning' the Mercedes to protect someone of importance or something of value." 660 F.Supp. at 412. The agents recognized the Mercedes as belonging to Parker, who, along with Warmington Chow, was under investigation for allegedly running a crack operation in Harlem. The agents observed Chow get out of the Mercedes, another man leave the Jeep, and both enter a building. When the men left the building 20 minutes later, Chow was carrying a package under his arm.

3

The agents stopped the vehicles and asked the occupants of the Mercedes (Chow and two passengers) to get out of the car. The agents observed an open brown paper bag containing money in the front seat of the Mercedes. They removed the bag and found it contained $2,710 in old bills, with rubber bands around each denomination of bills, which the agents determined to be "street money." The agents then searched the rear of the car on the driver's side and found the remains of a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray; it had been smoked down to the end. The agents transported the Mercedes to the DEA office and informed its occupants that the car was going to be seized. The $2,710 in currency was also seized.

4

In October 1986, the government filed a verified complaint seeking forfeiture of the Mercedes pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(4), because it "was used or intended to be used by Warmington Chow to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of a controlled substance." Parker, the owner of the Mercedes, filed a claim to the vehicle, denying the government's allegation. The action was consolidated with an action for the forfeiture of the $2,710 seized from the Mercedes, and was tried by Judge Leisure in February 1987.

[*~3]5

The district court concluded that the Mercedes was forfeitable under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(4) since it was used to transport marijuana, rejecting claimants' allegation that the marijuana was planted by an unidentified DEA agent. The court stated that it was of no legal significance that the amount of marijuana in question was relatively small or that the owner was not a participant in the acts that brought about the forfeiture. The court also concluded that the $2,710 in currency was forfeitable under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(6) since Chow failed to establish that the currency was not furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance. The court rejected Chow's story as to the source of the money. Chow did not appeal from the judgment of forfeiture.

6

On appeal, Parker argues that the mere suspicion that she was engaged in drug trafficking is insufficient to support the forfeiture of the Mercedes pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(4). It is true that in order for the government to establish a prima facie case for the forfeiture of a vehicle under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(4), the government must demonstrate probable cause for the forfeiture and the grounds for probable cause must rise above the level of "mere suspicion." See United States v. Banco Cafetero Panama, 797 F.2d 1154, 1160 (2d Cir.1986). However, since the forfeiture here is based upon the fact that the Mercedes was used to transport marijuana and not that it was used by Parker in connection with her alleged drug trafficking activities, Parker's argument is without merit.

[*~4]7

The government also addresses the argument that the DEA agents' search of the Mercedes on June 6 violated Parker's fourth amendment rights. We are not sure that Parker has even made this argument, but to the extent that she has, we believe it is without merit. The evidence indicates that Chow was driving the Mercedes with Parker's permission, that he had borrowed the car from Parker on previous occasions and that when Chow used the car Parker never told him where or with whom he could go. When the DEA agents searched the interior of the car and found the remains of the marijuana cigarette in the ashtray, they intruded into an area of the car where Chow could have invited any stranger. We believe that by lending the Mercedes to Chow, Parker abandoned any legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched and thus may not now contest the legality of the search. See United States v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 708 F.2d 444, 449-50 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1071, 104 S.Ct. 981, 79 L.Ed.2d 217 (1984).

8

Finally, at oral argument, Parker argued that forfeiture of the Mercedes could not be predicated on the transportation of such a small quantity of marijuana, since under New York law the possession of less than 25 grams of marijuana has been decriminalized. See New York Penal Law Secs. 221.05, 221.10. It is not clear to what extent this argument was raised below. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the argument is without merit. The governing law here is federal, not state. Marijuana is a controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. Sec. 812(c), Schedule I and 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(4) provides for the forfeiture of any vehicle used to transport a controlled substance. And, as we stated in United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421, 425 (2d Cir.1977), "the transportation of any quantity of drugs however minute is admittedly sufficient to merit the forfeiture of the vehicle." Cf. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 693, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2096, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974) (yacht valued at $19,800 with one marijuana cigarette on board was forfeitable under Puerto Rico statute substantially similar to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881, even though owner had no knowledge of the contraband).

9

We have considered all of claimant's arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.