Summary

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania…

It is apparent that the nature of the property here, though termed contraband by Pennsylvania, is quite different. There is nothing even remotely criminal in possessing an automobile. It is only the alleged use to which this particular automobile was put that subjects Mr. McGonigle to its possible loss. And it is conceded here that the Commonwealth could not establish an illegal use without using the evidence resulting from the search which is challenged as having been in violation of the Constitution.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania…

It would be anomalous indeed, under these circumstances, to hold that in the criminal proceeding the illegally seized evidence is excludable, while in the forfeiture proceeding, requiring the determination that the criminal law has been violated, the same evidence would be admissible. [11] That the forfeiture is clearly a penalty for the criminal offense and can result in even greater punishment than the criminal prosecution has in fact been recognized by the Pennsylvania courts.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania…

Justice Bradley aptly pointed out in Boyd, a forfeiture proceeding is quasi-criminal in character. Its object, like a criminal proceeding, is to penalize for the commission of an offense against the law. In this case McGonigle, the driver and owner of the automobile, was arrested and charged with a criminal offense against the Pennsylvania liquor laws. The record does not disclose which particular offense or offenses he was charged with committing.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature