In accordance with HCA Section 302
The BORS has reason to believe that the institution, as one of the permitted agencies in human cloning in Section 200, was facilitating and committing the prohibited crime of reproducing humans for compensation as per Section 201. The question is whether the BORS' actions were unconstitutional and whether they denied the university of personal and real property by seizing a number of properties without prior notice or hearing. Whether there are evident existent circumstances that would justify the executive action by the BORS to seize the University of Virginia's property and the Elson Student Health Center within the Cottage building automatically without the due processes of notification or adversary hearing.
SHORT ANSWER
The BORS did not act unconstitutionally in the prejudgment seizure of property because the government was in alignment to the Due Process Clause and there was plausible claim to prompt executive action before notice or hearing. The BORS acted on the exigent circumstances of the case providing preliminary steps in the criminal procedure stipulated in the Act. The case is peculiar because there are circumstances in the case that make automatic seizure of personal and real property justified instanced by the possibility of replacement, destruction, and relocation of property except the premises to avoid implication. Also the fact that the BORS has jurisdiction in such a proceeding and that the process was started by a party without self-interest as motivation.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 22nd April 2017, the BORS, without notice or hearing, several personal properties and one real property belonging to the University of Virginia because there was enough reason to believe that the institution was violating Section 201 of the HCA. On 25th of April, 2017 the University was notified of the complaint by an employee of the name Kelvin who works a biochemist at the same institution. The BORS was notified that the cloning activities were taking place late in the night and that there were injuries and death in the process. The BORS received Kelvin's complaint on April 15, 2017.
DISCUSSION
The case implicates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and also the Due process of the Fourth Amendment. In the absence of exigent circumstances, a civil forfeiture of real property that cannot abscond require a notice and the opportunity to defend claim before the more intrusive action of a seizure is taken as found in Soldal v. Cook County 506 U.S. at 56 (1992). The due process clause also demands that seizures for purposes of evidence preservation be done accordingly in cases of criminal wrongdoing. A pre-deprivation notice and hearing are therefore afforded in the due process clause. However, the case is peculiar in that the BORS has jurisdiction in enforcing the HCA and can seize property, real or personal so long as it is used in the cloning process and may be used to determine criminal wrongdoing and violation of Act, and in the due process of a civil forfeiture proceeding (United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property ).
There are therefore grounds on which to seize property under the Act, but the protections of the owner are not laid out. The reasonableness of the force of enforcement is therefore subject to the discretion of the BORS regarding their duty to the Due process after the preliminary inquiry under Sections 302 and 303. There are exigent circumstances in the case that make the situation of lacking prior notice and hearing before seizure an exceptional situation where the seizure did deprive property to the respondent without due process according to the ruling in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. at 416 U.S. 663 (1974). There is a plausible claim for executive urgency to respond to the complaints and the risk of the institution frustrating the BORS's efforts by concealing or destroying some of the property if a notice was given. There are therefore circumstances that the personal property used in cloning could be destroyed or removed to another place to deter the BORS efforts in the final determination of the case given an advance warning of confiscation justify automatic prompt action and postponement of notice and hearing.
The circumstance that the premises have been cited as crimes scenes in a possible murder, the BORS had added mandate to seize the real property to prevent the facilitation of further wrongdoing related to human cloning activities. In seizing the property, the BORS can be said to be acting in two capacities prescribed by Section 303, where the government recognizes that the real property is subject to forfeiture in an ex parte proceeding complying with the Fourth Amendment. The seizure, in this case, would be limited by the provisions of the due process regarding the real property affording them a notice and an adversary hearing. If the Due Process Clause was the only definitive guide on the issue, then the government could have acted unconstitutionally by not providing a pre-deprivation notice or allowing a reasonable hearing. The case here is however different because the government acted on probable cause in executing the prejudgment seizure (United States v. 4492 South Livonia Road ).The BORS did not violate the Fourth Amendment in application to searches and seizures after finding a reason to believe there was a violation of the Act under Section 302.
CONCLUSION
The University does not have the privilege of invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment because there is an exigent circumstance in the case that presents an extraordinary situation that exemplifies the due process requirement of a notification and the opportunity for an adversary hearing.
