The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that authorities are not required to provide a quick hearing when seizing cars and other property used in drug crimes, even if the property belongs to innocent owners. The case involved two Alabama women who had to wait over a year for their cars to be returned after they were stopped by police and drugs were found in the vehicles. Civil forfeiture allows authorities to seize property without having to prove it was used for illicit activities, leading to criticism of the practice as legalized theft.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the conservative majority, stated that a civil forfeiture hearing to determine property loss must be timely, but a separate hearing about whether police can keep the property in the meantime is not required by the Constitution. However, dissenting liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that civil forfeiture is vulnerable to abuse, with police departments having a financial incentive to keep the property. Sotomayor criticized the lack of initial judicial oversight in seizing and holding cars indefinitely.
The two women involved in the case, Halima Culley and Lena Sutton, filed federal lawsuits seeking prompt court hearings to have their cars returned sooner. Neither woman was involved in or aware of the illegal activity that led to their cars being seized. Sutton had lent her car to a friend who was arrested for drug trafficking, while Culley’s son was found with marijuana in the car he was using for college. The lengthy delays in returning their cars caused significant challenges for the women, impacting their ability to work, pay bills, and attend appointments.
The Supreme Court’s decision means that individuals whose property is seized can face months or years of delay in getting it back, causing disruptions to their daily lives. Kirby Thomas West, co-director of the National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse, criticized the impact on owners of seized vehicles who will struggle to fulfill essential tasks like going to work or taking their children to school. Justice Neil Gorsuch, part of the majority, expressed concerns about the use of civil forfeiture and called for future cases to assess whether the practice aligns with constitutional guarantees of due process.
Gorsuch, in an opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, highlighted the growing business of civil forfeiture and the need to address larger questions about its constitutionality. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that property cannot be taken without due process of law. The ruling raises broader concerns about the fairness and transparency of civil forfeiture practices, indicating a potential need for further examination and reform to protect the rights of innocent property owners caught up in these seizures.
