A vehicle used solely for commuting to an illegal distillery is
not used in violating the revenue laws within the meaning of § 3116
of the Internal Revenue Code, and is not forfeitable thereunder.
Pp. 344 U. S. 630
199 F.2d 495, affirmed.
In this proceeding, the Government sought the forfeiture of an
automobile and of a truck under the provisions of § 3116 of the
Internal Revenue Code in the District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma. That Section allows the seizure and
forfeiture of property "intended for use in violating" the alcohol
tax laws, as well as property "which has been so used." The
respondent, alleging an interest in the two vehicles, contested the
The district judge found the facts to be that the truck and
automobile had each been used by the operator of an illegal
distillery to drive a number of miles from his home and then parked
at a point one-alf mile or more from the distillery, the operator
walking the rest of the way. The district judge found that the
Government had not shown, as it had been alleged, that the vehicles
had been used for transporting materials or utensils for use at the
distillery, and ruled that the facts shown did not justify a
forfeiture. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed,
199 F.2d 495.
Page 344 U. S. 631
The Government has petitioned for a writ of certiorari showing
that, while the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in
United States v. One 1948 Plymouth Sedan,
198 F.2d 399
(1952), held in accord with the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit has taken a contrary view, United States
v. One 1950 Ford Half-on Pickup Automobile Truck,
195 F.2d 857
(1952). Certiorari is granted in order to resolve this
We think it clear that a vehicle used solely for commuting to an
illegal distillery is not used in violating the revenue laws.
Certiorari granted, and the judgment affirmed.