Section 1437d

Citation: Section 1437d
Parent Document: Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2001-01-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7086389/rucker-v-davis/ ↗

Full Text

995 chars

The majority argues that this unbroken line of authority is factually distinguishable from the present case. Specifically, the majority hangs its constitutional argument on the fact that two tenants face eviction for drug related criminal activity that took place on public housing premises but not in the tenant’s apartment. This is a thin reed on which to hang “grave doubts” as to the constitutionality of § 1437d(i )(6). The “cases authorizing [forfeiture of the property of innocent owners] are ‘too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced.’ ” Bennis, 516 U.S. at 452, 116 S.Ct. 994. (quoting Goldsmith-Grant, 254 U.S. at 511, 41 S.Ct. 189). The facts of this case present no reason to create a new constitutional rule. Those who engaged in drug-related criminal activity were on the premises with the consent of the tenants. No additional nexus among the tenant, property, and the drug use is constitutionally required. C. Excessive Fines

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text