## Facts

- The United States brought an in rem civil forfeiture action against the sailing vessel *Nisku* under 21 U.S.C. § 881 after marijuana was found aboard.
- Ralph G. Washington owned the *Nisku* but had left the vessel with Jose Giner to be fitted out for a planned two-year cruise.
- A DEA agent conducting surveillance in Newport, Rhode Island observed men on the *Nisku* smoking what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes.
- Agents obtained and executed a search warrant early the next morning and boarded the vessel.
- Agents found approximately three-quarters of a pound of marijuana in the area where Giner slept.
- The crew was arrested and the vessel was seized.
- Washington contested forfeiture, asserting the marijuana belonged to Giner and that the vessel was not used for commercial drug trafficking but, at most, for personal possession and use.
- The district court ordered forfeiture, and Washington appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether 21 U.S.C. § 881 permits forfeiture of a vessel used to transport or facilitate possession of controlled substances even when the drugs are allegedly for personal use rather than commercial trafficking.
2. Whether forfeiture of the vessel based on a relatively small amount of marijuana is unconstitutional under due process and excessive-sanctions principles.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the forfeiture judgment.
- The court held that § 881’s text is broad and does not limit forfeiture to conveyances used in commercial drug trafficking.
- The presence of marijuana aboard the vessel established a sufficient nexus that the vessel was used to transport or to facilitate possession of a controlled substance.
- The court rejected the constitutional challenge and upheld forfeiture as consistent with Congress’s authorization of in rem forfeiture of conveyances used in drug offenses.

## Legal Principles

- Under 21 U.S.C. § 881, a conveyance may be forfeited if it is used, or intended for use, to transport controlled substances or to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of controlled substances.
- The statute does not impose a commercial-trafficking requirement; facilitation of possession alone can satisfy the statutory condition for forfeiture.
- In rem forfeiture focuses on the property’s use in the prohibited activity rather than the owner’s personal guilt.
- Forfeiture of a valuable conveyance for a modest quantity of drugs was upheld against due process and excessive-sanctions objections where Congress clearly authorized forfeiture for the covered conduct.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed forfeiture of the *Nisku*, holding that § 881 reaches vessels used to facilitate drug possession even absent proof of commercial trafficking, and that forfeiture on these facts was not unconstitutional.


United States v. One Clipper Bow Ketch Nisku, 548 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1977)