Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Locke V. United States And The Definition Of Probable Cause In U.S. Civil Forfeiture Proceedings, Benjamin Groff
Locke V. United States And The Definition Of Probable Cause In U.S. Civil Forfeiture Proceedings, Benjamin Groff
Legal History Publications
United States civil forfeiture laws are rooted in admiralty in rem forfeiture proceedings that go back to mid-1700s English customs law, and a statute called the Act of Frauds. The procedure was born of the necessity of international marine trade. Similarly, when it came to using in rem seizure to enforce the customs laws, the Crown used a burden shifting presumption that was also born of necessity. Vessel owners were required to come forward and exculpate their vessel once the Crown showed probable cause of a violation. In Locke v. United States, Justice Marshall upheld that burden shifting presumption and …
Manro V. Almeida: Piracy, Maritime Torts, And Attachment In Rem, Stephanie Owen
Manro V. Almeida: Piracy, Maritime Torts, And Attachment In Rem, Stephanie Owen
Legal History Publications
In 1820, Captain Joseph Almeida, on the Bolivar and under South American colors, pursued and captured the Spanish ship Santiago off the coast of the Chesapeake Bay. On board was $5000 in specie owned by a small group of Baltimore merchants. The Baltimore merchants brought a libel against Captain Almeida and requested an attachment in rem to force Captain Almeida to answer for the maritime tort. Although the attachment initially issued, the lower court restored Captain Almeida’s goods. In 1825, the United States Supreme Court ruled that attachment in rem was a proper remedy for a maritime tort.