No. 23-5717

Ronnie Shahar v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-10-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights coin-seizure due-process expert-testimony forfeiture forfeiture-proceedings import-regulations metallurgical-evidence probable-cause seizure standing summary-judgment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2023-11-09
Question Presented (from Petition)

I. What is the level of proof required from the US Government when it seizes
mutilated or damaged coins imported from Chinese recycling factories and
dump yards, on the suspicion that the coins are forgeries, when it launches a
motion to forfeit the coins or when it makes a motion for summary judgment
in response to the owner complaint to return coins seized by way of warrants
or other seizures, given that there is a differences in approach between the
two jurisdictions that normally handle these case (Los Angeles as a port of
entry) and Philadelphia (as the situs of the US Mint).

II. What qualifies as "probable cause " that is sufficient for the issuance of
warrants to seize coins imported from China, given that so far no owner or
Petitioner was able to progress any case to the point of receiving discovery
and/or cross examining the agents that requested the warrants.

III. Can a trial court rely on an expert metallurgical opinion from someone
who works in or for the US Mint, given that in the Philadelphia cases the US
Mint expert report was determined to be false (at an oral hearing), and in the
herein case in California the US Mint expert wrote that he performed a novel
testing technique, which is doubtful whether it has industry standard
recognition, and why the courts handling these cases should not appoint a
neutral expert or at lease order the US prosecutors to provide the owner with
samples so he can arm himself with an expert opinion of his own.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

What is the level of proof required from the US Government when it seizes mutilated or damaged coins imported from Chinese recycling factories and dump yards, on the suspicion that the coins are forgeries, when it launches a motion to forfeit the coins or when it makes a motion for summary judgment in response to the owner complaint to return coins seized by way of warrants or other seizures, given that there is a differences in approach between the two jurisdictions that normally handle these case (Los Angeles as a port of entry) and Philadelphia (as the situs of the US Mint)

Docket Entries

2023-11-13
Petition DENIED.
2023-10-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2023.
2023-10-18
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-10-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 3, 2023)

Attorneys

Ronnie Shahar
Ronnie Shahar — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent