18 U.S.C. § 2233
Rescue of seized property
Whoever forcibly rescues, dispossesses, or attempts to rescue or dispossess any property, articles, or objects after the same shall have been taken, detained, or seized by any officer or other person under the authority of any revenue law of the United States, or by any person authorized to make searches and seizures, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1977–2003 · leading case: United States v. David Spicer
United States v. David Spicer (1977)
“This comes from Defendant Spicer’s appeal from a conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2233 , 1 for forceably rescuing or dispossessing the Marshal from his lawful custody of a seagoing tug.”
Marjorie Fishburn v. Edward E. Brown, United States of America, and Internal Revenue Service (1997)
“Camilletti and Marzich then arrested Fishburn for forcibly rescuing her property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2233 . 3 A grand jury eventually indicted Fishburn, but the government dismissed the case shortly before trial and returned the Blazer to Fish-burn.”
Gasho v. United States (1994)
“The district court held instead that the arrests were justified under either of two other statutes: 6 18 U.S.C. § 2233 , which prohibits forcible rescue of seized property, or 18 U.”
Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach (2003)
“§ 549 , the arrest could alternatively have been justified under 18 U.S.C. § 2233 , prohibiting forcible rescue of seized property, or under 18 U.”
United States v. Ridgeway (1982)
“Appellant could have been charged under the “crimes and offenses not capital” clause of Article 134 with violating 18 U.”
United States v. Richard A. Jackson (1986)
“§ 2232 (Count Three), and Jackson was charged with destruction of seized property, 18 U.S.C. § 2233 (Count Four) and assaulting a federal officer, 18 U.”
Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach (2003)
“§ 549 , the arrest could alternatively have been justified under 18 U.S.C. § 2233 , prohibiting forcible rescue of seized property, or under 18 U.”
United States v. Grady Lee Sanders (1988)
“II This case presents at the outset an issue of first impression for this court: the prop-er interpretation of the term “forcible rescue” as found in 18 U.S.C. § 2233 . This section provides: Whoever forcibly rescues, dispossesses, or attempts to rescue or dispossess any…”
United States v. De Tomaso (2002)
“First, the district court properly instructed the jury that they had to determine whether the defendant’s property was seized by a proper official authorized under the Internal Revenue Code.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.