## Facts

- Larry Dean Dusenbery, a federal inmate serving a sentence for drug offenses, had cash seized during a search connected to his arrest.
- The FBI initiated administrative forfeiture of the cash under a statute requiring written notice to interested parties.
- To provide notice, the FBI sent certified mail to (1) Dusenbery at the federal prison where he was incarcerated, (2) the residence where he was arrested, and (3) an address in the town where his mother lived.
- The FBI also published notice in a newspaper.
- No claim was filed within the deadline, and the FBI declared the cash forfeited.
- Years later, Dusenbery asserted he never received notice of the forfeiture while in prison.
- On remand proceedings in the district court, an officer testified he signed the certified-mail receipt at the prison and described institutional procedures for logging and delivering certified mail to inmates; contemporaneous mail logs were unavailable because the prison kept them only for one year.

## Issues

1. Whether the Due Process Clause requires proof that an incarcerated property owner actually received notice of administrative forfeiture.
2. Whether sending notice by certified mail to the prison (plus additional certified mailings and publication) was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the inmate of the forfeiture proceeding.
3. Whether adequacy of notice should be analyzed under the Mullane standard rather than a Mathews balancing test.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the United States in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that the FBI’s notice efforts satisfied due process.
- The Court applied the Mullane “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances” standard to evaluate the method of notice.
- The Court rejected the argument that due process required the government to ensure actual notice or to take additional, more demanding steps to maximize delivery within the prison.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional adequacy of notice turns on whether the government used a method reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to inform interested parties, not on whether notice was actually received.
- For notice challenges, Mullane supplies the governing framework; Mathews balancing is not the general test for evaluating the adequacy of notice methods.
- Use of certified mail to a prisoner’s place of incarceration, together with other reasonable steps (such as additional mailings and publication), can satisfy due process even if the inmate later claims nonreceipt.
- Due process does not require the government to take extraordinary measures to guarantee delivery when the chosen method is reasonable.

## Conclusion

The Court held that due process was satisfied because the government’s combined notice efforts, including certified mail sent to the inmate’s prison, were reasonably calculated to inform him of the administrative forfeiture, and the Constitution did not require proof of actual receipt.


Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002)