Supreme Court Allows Long Delays in Property Seizures for Drug Crimes, Critics Call it ‘Legalized Theft’

In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court has ruled that authorities do not have to provide a quick hearing when seizing cars and other property used in drug crimes, even if the property belongs to innocent owners. Two Alabama women, Halima Culley and Lena Sutton, had to wait over a year to get their cars back after police seized them while they were being driven by others and found drugs inside. Critics refer to this practice as “legalized theft”. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the conservative majority, stated that a hearing to decide whether the owner will permanently lose the property must be timely, but the Constitution does not require another hearing on whether police can keep the property temporarily. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in a dissent that civil forfeiture is “vulnerable to abuse” because police departments can keep the property indefinitely and force owners to forfeit it without a judge checking whether there is sufficient reason for seizure. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who supported the majority ruling, suggested that larger issues around the use of civil forfeiture should be explored in a future case to ensure it conforms to constitutional protections against unlawful property seizure. Between 2000 and 2019, states and the federal government received $68.8bn through forfeiture, while police departments reportedly earn millions annually from these schemes.