## Facts

- Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc. manufactured and repackaged veterinary drugs in Washington.
- FDA agents inspected Argent several times between the summer of 1993 and May 1994 to check compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and cited Argent for deficiencies.
- Several months after the last inspection, the United States filed a civil in rem condemnation action under 21 U.S.C. § 334 alleging that specified veterinary drugs were adulterated or otherwise unlawful under the FDCA.
- The FDCA provides that condemnation procedures in such actions should track admiralty procedure as closely as possible, and the action proceeded under the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (including Rule C).
- In accordance with Supplemental Rule C’s process for actions by the United States seeking forfeiture for federal statutory violations, a Deputy Clerk of the district court issued an in rem arrest warrant upon the filing of a verified complaint describing the property; no judicial officer reviewed the application or made a prior probable-cause determination.
- FDA agents and U.S. Marshals executed the arrest warrant and seized more than $100,000 worth of veterinary drugs from Argent’s premises.
- Argent appeared as claimant and moved to quash the arrest warrant, arguing the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not preceded by a judicial officer’s probable-cause finding.
- The district court agreed with Argent, quashed the warrant, and ordered the government to return the seized drugs; the order was stayed pending appeal.

## Issues

1. Does the Fourth Amendment bar the FDA from seizing allegedly adulterated veterinary drugs under 21 U.S.C. § 334 through an in rem arrest warrant issued by the court clerk on a verified complaint, without a prior probable-cause determination by a judicial officer?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court.
- The court held that the seizure procedure Congress authorized for FDCA condemnation actions—using admiralty-style in rem process and a clerk-issued arrest warrant based on a verified complaint in a federal statutory forfeiture action—was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Fourth Amendment seizures are evaluated for reasonableness; a prior judicial probable-cause determination is not required in every civil in rem seizure conducted under a congressionally authorized forfeiture/condemnation framework.
- Under the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. § 334, condemnation actions may proceed using admiralty-style procedures, including issuance of in rem process under Supplemental Rule C.
- Supplemental Rule C requires a verified complaint (oath or affirmation) that describes the property with reasonable particularity; in actions by the United States for forfeitures for federal statutory violations, the clerk may issue the arrest warrant upon filing.
- The combination of (1) a verified, particularized complaint, (2) seizure limited to the identified goods, and (3) prompt access to judicial process in which the government must prove the alleged FDCA violations supports the conclusion that the seizure is constitutionally reasonable.

## Conclusion

In *United States of America v. Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc.*, the Ninth Circuit held that the FDA’s seizure of allegedly unlawful veterinary drugs under the FDCA, carried out through an admiralty-style in rem arrest warrant issued by the court clerk on a verified complaint and without prior judicial review for probable cause, did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the statutory and procedural scheme made the seizure reasonable.


United States of America v. Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc., 93 F.3d 572 (1996)