green
Positive treatment
39.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#8
21 U.S.C.A. § 881
#1
49 U.S.C.A. § 781
#1
49 U.S.C.A. § 782
#6
21 U.S.C.A. § 812
#1
26 U.S.C.A. § 7301
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ameal Woods and Jordan Davis v. the State of Texas
See $43,774.00 U.S. Currency v. State, 266 S.W.3d 178, 187-88 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied); United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. $506,069.09 Seized from First Merit Bank
Probable cause is defined as “reasonable grounds for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” Id. (citing United States v. $22,287, 709 F.2d 442, 446-47 (6th Cir.1983), in turn quoting United States v. One Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. $242,484.00
In forfeiture cases, we have sometimes used these words: " 'Probable cause’ refers to ‘reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.' ” United States v. $4,255,625.39, 762 F.2d 895, 903 (11th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. $242,484.00
We doubt that our case law allows such appellate fact finding, but we are confident our law does not compel such appellate fact finding 8 In forfeiture cases, we have sometimes used these words: "`Probable cause' refers to `reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.'" United States v. $4,255,625.39, 762 F.2d 895, 903 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. $242,484.00
But the probable cause standard demands more powerful evidence than would allow some one to suspect – even reasonably to suspect – that a substantial connection exists between the pertinent property and a drug crime. “‘Probable cause’ refers to ‘reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.’” Id. (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material
See United States v. $242.484.00, 318 F.3d 1240 , 1243 (11th Cir.2003); A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d at 628 ; United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca11 2003
We will consider all the evidence to determine whether the Government has met its burden of establishing "probable cause for belief that a substantial connection exists between the property to be forfeited and the criminal activity defined by the statute." United States v. $4,255,625.39, 762 F.2d 895, 903 (11th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. $364,960 in U.S. Currency, 661 F.2d 319, 323 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981))(emphasis omitted). 4 "`Probable cause' refers to `reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.'" Id. (quoting United …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. $242,484.00
We will consider all the evidence to determine whether the Government has met its burden of establishing “probable cause for belief that a substantial connection exists between the property to be forfeited and the criminal activity defined by the statute.” United States v. $4,255,625.39, 762 F.2d 895, 903 (11th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. $364,960 in U.S. Currency, 661 F.2d 319, 323 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981))(emphasis omitted). 4 “ ‘Probable cause’ refers to ‘reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.’ ” Id…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Roscoe R. Beaty
Probable cause exists *624 where there is “a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than pri-ma facie proof, but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. Twenty-Two Thousand, Two Hundred Eighty Seven Dollars ($22,287), U.S. Currency, 709 F.2d 442, 446-47 (6th Cir.1983) (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One 1993 Chevrolet
United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala VIN-1L69U8S156817, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fifty Seven Thousand, Four Hundred and Forty-Three Dollars ($57,443.00)
The Eleventh Circuit has defined probable cause in forfeiture cases as “a reasonable ground for a belief of guilt supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 628 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980). 8 Based on the government’s complete inability to suggest how, where, when, or through whom the defendant currency may have entered the country, this Court finds the government’s allegations concerning Count I to rise only to the level of mere suspi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. 100 Cuban Cigars
“Probable cause” is defined as “reasonable ground for the belief of guilt supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. Three Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Dollars, 661 F.2d 319, 323 (5th Cir.1981), citing United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. $69,530.00 in United States Currency
The Fifth Circuit has defined “probable cause” as “reasonable ground for guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” U.S. v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Located at Route 2
(2×)
The proof of probable cause is satisfied when there is “a reasonable ground for belief ... supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. One 1986 Nissan Maxima GL, 895 F.2d 1063, 1064 (5th Cir.1990), quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, Etc., 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gordon
Musa at 924 , citing United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, VIN-IL69U8S156817, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. 2730 Highway 31
United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 629-30 (11th Cir.1986) (citing United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Musa
United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, VIN-1L69U8S156817, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980). 9 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate
To meet its burden, the United States must show a “‘reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.’ ” United States v. $364,960, 661 F.2d 319, 323 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. 1988 Chevrolet Silverado, VIN: 1GCDC14H5JZ157972
E.g., United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, etc., 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980) (stating same for forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881 ); United States v. One 1975 Ford Pickup Truck, etc., 558 F.2d 755, 756 (5th Cir.1977) (stating same for forfeiture under 49 U.S.C. §§ 781-84 ); One 1971 Chevrolet Corvette Auto, 496 F.2d at 212 (same); see also Lot 9, Block 2 of Donnybrook Place, 919 F.2d at 997-98 (stating that government establishes probable cause warranting forfeiture of a house under 21 U.S.C. § 881 when it proves “reasonable grounds for believing that the house was used for ill…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. $121,100.00 in United States Currency, Katie Foster, Claimant-Appellant
N., 933 F.2d at 979; United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980). 4 It is well established, both in the law of forfeiture and in other areas of the law, that the probable cause inquiry is a flexible one in which the court must consider the “totality of the circumstances.” E.g., Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2328 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (Fourth Amendment search and seizure); United States v. 6250 Ledge Rd., 943 F.2d 721, 725 (7th Cir.1991) (forfeiture); United States v. One 1987 Mercedes 560 SEL, 919 F.2d 327, 331 (5th Cir.1990) (sam…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Certain Real Properties at 14307 Four Lakes Drive, Sterline Heights, Michigan
The government must convince the judge that it had "a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion." $22,287.00, United States Currency, 709 F.2d at 446 (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Cash Totalling $15,156.00
Probable cause is a “reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Puello
Probable cause is demonstrated when there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the property in question is connected to illegal activity, and the reasonable grounds are “supported by more than mere suspicion, but less than prima facie proof.” $175,260, at 47 (citing United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Certain Real Property 566 Hendrickson Boulevard, Clawson, Oakland County, Michigan, Leonard Willis, Claimant-Appellant
The probable cause which the government must show is "a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion." Id. at 446-47 (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. 1988 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme 2 Door, VIN 1G3WR14W5JD323281
United States v. One 1986 Nissan Maxima GL, 895 F.2d 1063, 1064 (5th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, Etc., 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)). 12 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
No. 92-8068 (Summary Calendar)
Sec., 725 F.Supp. 172, 177 (S.D.N.Y.1989) 11 United States v. One 1986 Nissan Maxima GL, 895 F.2d 1063, 1064 (5th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, Etc., 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)) 12 United States v. $364,960.00 in United States Currency, 661 F.2d 319, 325 (5th Cir.1981) 13 LITTLE AL, 712 F.2d at 136 14 --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 554 , 121 L.Ed.2d 474 (1992) 15 Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 558 16 Id. at ---- - ----, 113 S.Ct. at 558 . (quoting United States v. The Little Charles, 26 F.Cas. 979 (CC Va.1818)) 17 Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 558 18 Id. (emphasis added…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One (1) Parcel of Land in the Name of Mikell
Probable cause is a “reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One Afghan Urial Ovis Orientalis Blanfordi Fully Mounted Sheep, Joel Pat Latham, Claimant-Appellant
Probable cause is defined as a “reasonable ground for belief ... supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. v. One Afghan Urial Ovis Orientalis Blanfordi Fully Mounted Sheep
Probable cause is defined as a "reasonable ground for belief ... supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion." United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980). acquired, or purchased contrary to the provisions of section 3372 of this title ... shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States notwithstanding any culpability requirements for civil penalty assessment or criminal prosecution included in section 3373 of this title. 2 Section 3372(a) provides as follows: It is unlawful for any person (2) to import, export, transport, sell, re…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Two and 43 100 Dollars
See Walker, 900 F.2d at 1204 ; United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. One 1975 Ford F100 Pickup Truck, 558 F.2d 755, 756 (5th Cir.1977). 5 "Circumstantial evidence of drug transactions may support the establishment of probable cause." Padilla, 888 F.2d at 644.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Two & 43/100 Dollars ($149,442.43) in United States Currency
See Walker, 900 F.2d at 1204 ; United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. One 1975 Ford F100 Pickup Truck, 558 F.2d 755, 756 (5th Cir.1977). 5 “Circumstantial evi dence of drug transactions may support the establishment of probable cause.” Padilla, 888 F.2d at 644.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re One 1987 Toyota, DE Reg. 461262 VIN JT2AE8659HO256431
Stating the standard generally, probable cause in a forfeiture action is ‘ “a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” ’ United States v. Premises Known As 3639-2nd St., N.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota, supra, 869 F.2d at 1095 , quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Forfeiture, Stop Six Center
Probable cause to forfeit is “reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Forfeiture, Stop Six Center
This circuit defines probable cause to forfeit as “reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. $80,760.00 in U.S. Currency
This circuit defines probable cause to forfeit as “reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. 417 East Grand Avenue
Probable cause in a forfeiture proceeding is a “reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980); see also United States v. One 1977 Lincoln Mark V.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property in Greene & Tuscaloosa Counties
The government’s burden of demonstrating probable cause requires “less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion." United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property in Greene and Tuscaloosa Counties in the State of Alabama
The government's burden of demonstrating probable cause requires "less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion." United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One Sharp Photocopier
In this context, probable cause is defined as “a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” Id. (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 15603 85th Avenue North
Lauderdale, 803 F.2d at 628 (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 15603
Lauderdale, 803 F.2d at 628 (quoting United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)). 12 In meeting its burden in this case, the government presented substantial evidence of Curtis's drug transactions in 1985-1986 and Pinder's testimony of Curtis's efforts to arrange drug transactions around his need to construct the house.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) in U.S. Currency
Probable cause is defined as “reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. $22,287, 709 F.2d 442, 446-447 (6th Cir.1983) (quoting United States v. One Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00)
The Court will next address the question of whether the government has met its burden of establishing probable cause. [1] Probable Cause To establish probable cause the government must show "a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion." United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One 1987 Mercedes 560 SEL
Probable cause is a "reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by tess than prima fade proof but more than mere suspicion." United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
No. 89-3769
Determining whether "the facts adduced at a forfeiture hearing constitute probable cause is a question of law subject to de novo review by this court." United States v. $38,600.00 in United States Currency, 784 F.2d 694, 697 (5th Cir.1986). 13 Section 881(a)(6) provides for forfeiture to the United States of 14 [a]ll moneys ... or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys ... used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. $175,260
United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980) {Per Curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. One 1987 Ford F-350 4× 4 Pickup
U.S. v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred & Fifteen Dollars
In order to meet its burden, the government must demonstrate that there was “a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. One 1975 Mercedes 280S, 590 F.2d 196 (6th Cir.1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Twenty (20) Cashier's Checks, Having the Aggregate Value of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) Dollars in U.S. Currency
United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala Van, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. One 1975 Ford Pickup Truck, 558 F.2d 755, 756 (5th Cir.1977).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Twenty (20) Cashier's Checks
United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala Van, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. One 1975 Ford Pickup Truck, 558 F.2d 755, 756 (5th Cir.1977).
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ONE 1978 CHEVROLET IMPALA VIN-1L69U8S156817, Defendant-Appellant
v.
ONE 1978 CHEVROLET IMPALA VIN-1L69U8S156817, Defendant-Appellant
79-2457.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 31, 1980.
Warren L. “Rip” Collins, Jr., Austin, Tex., for defendant-appellant., Jeremiah Handy, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Roney, Kravitch, Tate.
Cited by 114 opinions | Published
Claimants appeal from a judgment for forfeiture against their. 1978 Chevrolet Impala under 21 U.S.C.A. § 881 and 49 U.S.C.A. § 782. We affirm.
At the trial, the Government presented evidence showing that the vehicle was employed in transporting phenyl-2-propanone (P-2-P) used in the manufacture of methaphetamine. While methaphetamine is a controlled substance and thus contraband, P-2-P is not. 21 U.S.C.A. § 812; 49 U.S.C.A. § 781(b)(1). Claimants presented no evidence at the close of the Government’s case. When the Government’s evidence in a forfeiture proceeding under these statutes is uncontradicted, the scope of the inquiry on appeal is whether the Government’s evidence established probable cause for the institution of the suit. See United States v. One 1971 Chevrolet Corvette, 496 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1974).
The probable cause necessary here is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion. United States v. One 1975 Ford Pickup Truck, 558 F.2d 755 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. One 1971 Chevrolet Corvette, 496 F.2d at 212; Bush v. United States, 389 F.2d 485 (5th Cir. 1968).
21 U.S.C.A. § 881(a)(4) subjects to forfeiture any vehicle, which is used or intended for use to transport any controlled substance or any raw material, product, or equipment used or intended for use in manufacturing any controlled substance. Thus the fact that the goods transported could be used in a legitimate business does not prevent a forfeiture. Cf. Utley Wholesale Co. v. United States, 308 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1962) (forfeiture of a tractor trailer and 300 sacks of sugar under 26 U.S.C.A. § 7301); United States v. Bryan, 265 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1959) (forfeiture of tow truck under same statute). The district court’s finding that the vehicle was used to transport P— 2-P to be used for the purpose of making methaphetamine, a controlled substance, is sufficient to establish the probable cause[*985] necessary to sustain the forfeiture. That finding is not clearly erroneous. The district court correctly applied 21 U.S.C.A. § 881.
The forfeiture was also proper under 49 U.S.C.A. § 782. The findings of the district court are sufficient to show that the vehicle “facilitated” the “transportation, carriage, conveyance, concealment, receipt, possession, purchase, sale, barter, exchange, or giving away of” a contraband article. 49 U.S.C.A. § 781(a)(3). See United States v. One 1973 Volvo, 377 F.Supp. 810 (W.D.Tex. 1974), and cases cited therein. The Government therefore met its burden of proof. Neither of the two exceptions in the statute are applicable because claimants have not shown that the violation was committed by a person who acquired possession of the vehicle illegally or that the vehicle was used as a common carrier.
AFFIRMED.