In the 1982 case United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in United States Currency, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a civil forfeiture matter involving seized money believed to be connected with drug trafficking. The claimant argued that her Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated because of an unreasonable delay between seizure of the cash and initiation of forfeiture proceedings by government authorities. The court held that while there was indeed a significant delay (18 months), it did not violate due process as long as it was justified under certain circumstances such as complexity or overseas investigations involved in preparing for trial. However, if delays are found to be unjustified then they could potentially constitute a violation of constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in United States Currency, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision violated due process rights by allowing an unreasonable delay between seizure of property and forfeiture proceedings without requiring government to justify or explain the delay. He contended that this ruling effectively shifted burden of proof from government to claimant, contrary to established principles of civil forfeiture law. Furthermore, he criticized majority's reliance on Barker v. Wingo criteria as inappropriate for civil cases where liberty interests are not at stake but rather property rights are involved which require a different analysis under Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In his view, any significant delay should be considered prejudicial unless proven otherwise by government; thus making it incumbent upon them to initiate prompt action post-seizure or provide satisfactory reasons for any holdup.