Customs seizure questions

[AfterGlow]

Somebody I know had an overseas order of benzos seized by U.S. Customs. This person has a legal prescription for the benzo. The order was for a 200 day supply. I know that exceeds the 90 day personal use supply, but the Customer letter doesn't say that's why it was seized. It simply says the property is "Controlled Substances which are considered prohibited substances and therefore contraband" and it is being seized under the provisions of title 19USC1595a(c)(1)(B). The letter also contains instructions written in difficult-to-understand legal terminology only a lawyer could understand on how to petition for "administrative relief" to challenge the seizure.

My questions...

1. How does customs know whether or not a person has a legitimate prescription for a controlled substance ordered? Do they just assume there isn't one and they automatically do a seizure?

2. Has anybody out there ever successfully petitioned and obtained their seized property?

3. Customs must keep records of all its seizures. Does anybody know what they might do with this information? Do the supplier and purchaser info go into databases that are shared by government or law enforcement agencies? Is the information subject to any sort of privacy law?

 

[Mariposa]

I'll do some homework on this over the weekend, but my initial reaction is that the supply of benzos was seized because it was more than double the quantity permitted under the law.

 

[AfterGlow]

Thanks mariposa. But how would customs know that this is a 200 day supply without knowing the details of the prescription? The order was for 100 2mg pills, but the prescription this person has is for 1 mg per day. The overseas supplier didn't ask for and was not given any details about the prescription. A person could have a prescription for 4mg per day and this would then have been only a 50 day supply.

 

[zarquon]

For Question #1, I think they don't care whether you have a scrip or not.

The authority for the siezure looks basic enough:

19 USCA § 1595a
(c) Merchandise introduced contrary to law
Merchandise which is introduced or attempted to be introduced into the United States contrary to law shall be treated as follows:
(1) The merchandise shall be seized and forfeited if it--
(B) is a controlled substance, as defined in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), and is not imported in accordance with applicable law;

Which gets us into what the import rules are. The CSA is not a shining example succinctness and clarity, but over in 21 USC, subchapter II - Import and Export, we find:

§ 956. Exemption authority
(a) Individual possessing controlled substance
(1) ... the Attorney General may by regulation exempt from sections 952(a) and (b), 953, 954, and 955 of this title any individual who has a controlled substance ... in his possession for his personal medical use ... if he lawfully obtained such substance and he makes such declaration ... as the Attorney General may by regulation require.

[italics are mine, statute trimmed a little for simplicity]

without delving into the regs the AG uses, my seat-of-pants impression is that the exemption you refer to for a 90-day supply applies to persons arriving with the scrip and pharmaceuticals both in their possession. Since Customs can't see your scrip and ask you about how many days supply, they default to the more rigorous import/export rules for transshipment in 21 USC s954. Basically, to qualify for that medical use exemption, s954 requires advance notice (unless it's in your possession per s956).

For Question #2, yes it is possible to contest a Customs siezure .. but I have no idea about a Customs siezure in the CSA context. That said, since it wasn't in your personal possession and there was no advance notice as required under the transshipment regs, I am skeptical that you would succeed. Perhaps you could post a rough synopsis of the lawyerly instructions they gave you, focusing on the possible grounds for challenging the siezure?

For Question #3, records kept on individuals are generally subject to the privacy section of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC s552a. The Privacy Act does allow agencies to share data for law enforcement purposes, and I would be surprised if it wasn't at least available to LE.

Whether they use it or not is a different question; it can depend on things like who John Ashcroft want to harrass when he wakes up in the morning. If such data is used for LE, the agency(s) could claim an exemption from the Privacy Act under 5 USC s552a(k)(2). I'd bet that if you request to look at customs siezures data, they would claim this exemption.

 

[digitalshyst]

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/notices/2001/fr0427.htm

 

[AfterGlow]

Thank You digitalshyst. That eliminates any ambiguity and makes it crystal clear.

Once Customs identifies an overseas supplier shipping controlled substances ordered over the internet to consumers in the US, I'm surprised that ALL shipments from that company are not detained in Customs until they ALL can be inspected. Some must still be getting through or else the company wouldn't be shipping them any longer!

 

[Mariposa]

without delving into the regs the AG uses, my seat-of-pants impression is that the exemption you refer to for a 90-day supply applies to persons arriving with the scrip and pharmaceuticals both in their possession. Since Customs can't see your scrip and ask you about how many days supply, they default to the more rigorous import/export rules for transshipment in 21 USC s954. Basically, to qualify for that medical use exemption, s954 requires advance notice (unless it's in your possession per s956).

Great post- I quoted the part I found most enlightening with reference to this question.

The issue of physical possession of the benzos seems to be the hinge here.