Whether a claimant in a civil forfeiture action can establish the innocent owner defense by proving the absence of only one of its statutory conditions (e.g., lack of knowledge or lack of consent) rather than all of them

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• Joined by · 2d Cir.United States v. 141st St. Corp.911 F.2d 870
• Joined by · 11th Cir.United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 15603 85th Ave. N933 F.2d 976
• On the other side · 9th Cir.United States v. One Parcel of Land at Lot 111-B902 F.2d 1443

  “One Parcel of Land at Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (“[I]f the claimant either knew or consented to the illegal activities, the ‘innocent owner’ defense is unavailable.”); see also 890 Noyac Road, 739 F.Supp.” — United States v. One 1973 Rolls Royce, V.I.N. SRH-16266 ex rel. Goodman, acknowledging the split

• Discussed890 Noyac Road739 F.Supp. 113

  “rtantly, the 6109 Grubb Road construction ameliorates some of the harsh effects of the forfeiture statute.” — United States v. One 1973 Rolls Royce, V.I.N. SRH-16266 ex rel. Goodman, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · 8th Cir.1989 Jeep Wagoneer976 F.2d 1174

  “1989 Jeep Wagoneer, 976 F.2d at 1174 (8th Cir.) (noting the circuit split without taking a position on the question).” — United States v. One 1973 Rolls Royce, V.I.N. SRH-16266 ex rel. Goodman, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:

6109 Grubb Road

Doctrines & tests:

innocent owner defense