The Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for people whose property was seized by police to seek prompt return.
By a 6-3 vote, the court ruled against two Alabama women who had asked for a speedy hearing to recover their cars that were taken by police in connection with crimes committed by others. .
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, “After a state seizes personal property and seeks civil forfeiture, due process requires a timely forfeiture hearing; is not necessary,” he wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying the majority was taking a wooden approach to the issue at hand.
“Today's majority believes that police officers would never require the bare minimum check of a due process detention hearing before taking away a car from an innocent owner for months or even years. ” Justice Sotomayor wrote.
Although the court rejected the woman's argument that the Constitution requires a reasonable process, the five justices held that the act of confiscating property allegedly used in a crime, known as civil asset forfeiture, is a serious matter. expressed concern.
The court handed down judgments in two cases. One of hers started after Halima Curry bought her 2015 Nissan Altima for her son to use in college. He was stopped by police in 2019, found marijuana, and was arrested. They also seized Curry's car.
That same year, Lena Sutton lent her 2012 Chevrolet Sonic to a friend. He was stopped for speeding and arrested after police found methamphetamine. Sutton's car was also seized.
Alabama law in effect at the time allowed seized property to be returned to so-called innocent owners, and both women ultimately convinced a judge to return the cars. In both cases, the process took more than a year, but there was debate about whether the women could have done more to speed it up.
Curry and Sutton have filed a class action lawsuit in federal court, arguing they should have been given an immediate interim hearing to claim the vehicle back while the lawsuit proceeds. Lower courts ruled against them.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the Constitution's Due Process Clause does not require the preliminary hearings the women sought.
“Mr. Curry and Mr. Sutton’s argument for separate preliminary hearings is, in many ways, a more timely move that would allow property owners with adequate defenses to forfeiture to recover their property more quickly. “This appears to be a backdoor argument for a hearing,” he wrote. “However, court precedent already requires a timely hearing.”
Alabama has since amended its forfeiture laws to allow owners of seized property to request expedited trials.
“Our decision today does not preclude innovation as required by law,” Judge Kavanaugh said. “Rather, our decision merely addresses the basic protections of the Due Process Clause.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett also joined the majority opinion.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, said he agreed that a separate hearing was not necessary. But he added that questions remain about “whether modern civil forfeiture practices are consistent with the Constitution's promise of due process.”
Civil forfeitures are “growing rapidly,” he wrote, with federal forfeitures alone generating $2.5 billion in revenue in 2018.
“Future litigation will require a full explanation and work to assess the extent to which the significant changes in civil forfeiture practices we have witnessed in recent decades are consistent with due process principles,” he said. I hope we can start.”
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, made a similar point in his dissent in Curry v. Marshall, No. 22-585.
“Police agencies often have financial incentives to seize and keep as many vehicles as possible,” she wrote. “Forfeiture revenue is not a supplement. In fact, many police agencies rely on cash flow from forfeitures for their budgets.”
“These cash incentives not only incentivize each county to build a labyrinthine property recovery process in the hopes that innocent owners will abandon recovery attempts, but they also encourage police to It also affects whether, how, and by whom the law is enforced,” Justice Sotomayor added. against. “