The Supreme Court recently rejected appeals from two Alabama women who sought immediate hearings to recover vehicles that were taken through civil forfeiture procedures after being linked to criminal activity by others. The decision, made by a 6-3 majority led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, determined that the Due Process Clause demands prompt forfeiture proceedings but doesn’t necessarily require initial hearings, representing a setback for the claimants in question. All six judges appointed by Republicans were part of the decision.
The appellants, Halima Culley and Lena Sutton, brought class actions against the state of Alabama and its municipalities, arguing that their fundamental rights had been breached since they failed to receive expedient hearings regarding the confiscation of their respective cars. Culley’s son was caught behind the wheel of her 2015 Nissan Altima while carrying drugs, firearms, and drug paraphernalia; meanwhile, Sutton’s acquaintance was using her 2012 Chevrolet Sonic when he was detained for speeding, leading to the discovery of methamphetamine inside the automobile.
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in both instances decided that the “Speedy Trial” test, devised to address infringements of the Sixth Amendment, was applicable, and that due process was fulfilled via the civil forfeiture procedure. The attorney general of Alabama, Steven Marshall, a Republican, had requested that the High Court endorse the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, asserting that for decades, the Supreme Court has recognized that inquiries into the guilt or innocence of the property’s proprietor aren’t mandatory during civil forfeitures, provided that the property itself was utilized in unlawful activities.
Civil forfeiture legislation is implemented in all fifty states and Washington, DC. Since 2000, authorities at both the state and federal levels have amassed a total of $68.8 billion through confiscation, with police departments throughout the nation earning millions of dollars’ worth of goods annually. Democratic-appointed Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, proposing that when the police have financial incentives to maintain automobiles and owners deny involvement, a preliminary hearing should at the very least establish that the officer possesses reasonable grounds to associate the vehicle with a criminal offense. Sotomayor criticized the Court’s decision, stating that it extended beyond the specific topic being litigated and obstructed lower courts from dealing with various issues relating to the misuse of civil forfeiture processes.
Leave a Reply