19 U.S.C. § 1589
Repealed. Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7367(c)(5), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4480
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1988–2008 · leading case: Hallock v. United States, 253 F. Supp. 2d 361 (N.D.N.Y. 2003).
Hallock v. United States, 253 F. Supp. 2d 361 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). “Therefore, even if executing search warrants for suspected child pornography violations is not within the normal purview of what is traditionally thought to be a customs function, it is permissible so long as the Secretary of Treasury permits it.”
Auth. of the Customs Serv. to Offer Rewards for Info. Concerning the Whereabouts of Indicted Drug Traffickers (OLC 1989). “Kmiec, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (June 3, 1986) ( 19 U.S.C. §§ 1589 and 1589(a) do not provide the Customs Service with general narcotics law enforcement authority); Memorandum for the Attorney General, from Theodore B.”
Auth. of the Customs Serv. to Seize or Forfeit Prop. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 (OLC 1988). “United States Customs Service Jurisdiction over Title 21 Drug Offenses (June 3, 1986) (“Kmiec M emo”) (19 U.S C. §§ 1589 and 1589a provide warrant and arrest authonty to Customs, but do not alter its drug- related authority under Reorganization Plan N o.”
Delgado v. United States, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “Formerly 19 U.S.C. § 1589 . 4 . It appears undisputed that one shipment of liquor was not diverted, but instead exported to Venezuela as indicated on Customs form 7512.”
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.