United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993).

The Court held that a claimant to real property is entitled, absent emergency circumstances, to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the seizure of the property under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Further, the Court weighed the private interest affected by the seizure, the risk of erroneous deprivation through the procedures used, and the Government's interest in not having additional procedural safeguards imposed. The Court concluded that because real property cannot be moved easily or concealed, there is less of a risk that the property will be sold, destroyed, or used for other illegal purposes. A property owner, therefore, is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before his property is seized and the only way in which the Government can seize real property without these procedures is if it can demonstrate the existence of extraordinary circumstances. "Individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights. At stake in this and many other forfeiture cases are the security and privacy of the home and those who take shelter within it. In determining whether the delay between seizure of property and the institution of civil forfeiture proceedings violates due process, a court must consider four factors: the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the Defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the Defendant. None of the factors is a necessary or sufficient condition for finding an unreasonable delay; the factors should be used as a guide in balancing the interests of the claimant and the Government.