## Facts

- The United States filed three consolidated civil in rem forfeiture actions in the Eastern District of New York seeking forfeiture of 57 imported luxury items: 55 handbags and 2 belts.
- J.S. Suarez, Inc. (Suarez), an exotic-leather importer, claimed ownership of the seized merchandise.
- The government sought forfeiture under § 11(e)(4)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1540(e)(4)(A), alleging the goods were subject to forfeiture because they were made from protected crocodilian (and other reptile) hides and/or were improperly described on CITES documentation.
- A central focus was merchandise described as made from “yacare” (*Caiman crocodilus yacare*), which the government contended was regulated as an endangered (or otherwise protected) crocodilian subspecies for purposes of U.S. ESA/CITES enforcement.
- Suarez argued the ESA/CITES regime, as applied, violated due process because only a limited number of qualified specialists can reliably distinguish yacare from other similar crocodilian skins, making compliance and enforcement uncertain.
- Suarez also contended that delays between seizure and the commencement of forfeiture proceedings violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- Suarez asserted it acted in good faith and should not lose the goods because it relied on foreign suppliers and paperwork and did not knowingly import prohibited wildlife products.
- Following a bench trial, the district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on the government’s forfeiture claims and Suarez’s defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the ESA/CITES identification requirements, as applied to yacare products, failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice under the Fifth Amendment because accurate identification could be made by only a small number of specialists.
2. Whether the delay preceding initiation of the judicial forfeiture proceedings violated due process.
3. Whether the government had probable cause to seize the merchandise.
4. Whether the government established probable cause to believe the merchandise was subject to forfeiture under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(e)(4)(A).
5. Whether Suarez’s claimed good-faith or “innocent purchaser” status barred forfeiture.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for the United States and ordered forfeiture of the defendant property under ESA § 11(e)(4)(A).
- The court rejected Suarez’s due process/notice argument, holding that difficulty in distinguishing yacare from similar crocodilian skins did not render the statutory and regulatory scheme unconstitutional as applied; the governing ESA/CITES listings and documentation rules provided sufficient notice of what was required for lawful importation.
- Applying the due process balancing framework used for forfeiture-delay challenges, the court found no constitutional violation because the delays were reasonably explained by the nature of the investigation and litigation and Suarez did not show the type of prejudice that would justify dismissal.
- The court found the government met its initial burden to show probable cause to believe the goods were forfeitable based on evidence of protected species materials and/or misidentification or irregularities in CITES documentation.
- After probable cause was shown, Suarez did not carry its burden to prove the goods were lawfully imported and not subject to forfeiture.
- The court rejected Suarez’s good-faith defense, concluding that forfeiture under the ESA provision at issue does not require proof that the claimant knowingly violated the law, and an asserted lack of knowledge did not defeat forfeiture.

## Legal Principles

- The ESA authorizes civil in rem forfeiture of wildlife and wildlife products imported, exported, sold, possessed, or transported in violation of the ESA or implementing regulations, including CITES-based documentation requirements. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(e)(4)(A).
- In ESA civil forfeiture, the government must first establish probable cause to believe the property is subject to forfeiture; if it does, the burden shifts to the claimant to show the property is not forfeitable (for example, by showing lawful importation or lawful species status).
- Due process does not require that species identification be simple or that classification disputes be absent; a regulated party may be required to comply with documentation and identification rules even where identification depends on specialized knowledge.
- A due process challenge based on delay in instituting forfeiture is evaluated by balancing the length of delay, the reasons for delay, the claimant’s assertion of the right to a prompt hearing, and prejudice to the claimant.
- Absent a statutory exception, an “innocent purchaser” or good-faith defense does not bar an in rem forfeiture under the ESA forfeiture provision applied in this case.

## Conclusion

United States v. One Handbag of Crocodilus Species held that the government could forfeit 57 imported reptile-skin handbags and belts under the ESA/CITES enforcement scheme because probable cause supported forfeiture and Suarez failed to prove lawful importation; the court also rejected claims that scientific difficulty in identifying yacare or pre-filing delay violated due process, and it declined to recognize a good-faith purchaser defense to forfeiture.


United States v. One Handbag of Crocodilus Species, 856 F. Supp. 128 (1994)