Posted on 05/09/2024 12:20:34 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that authorities do not have to provide a quick hearing when they seize cars and other property used in drug crimes, even when the property belongs to so-called innocent owners.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices rejected the claims of two Alabama women who had to wait more than a year for their cars to be returned. Police had stopped the cars when they were being driven by other people and, after finding drugs, seized the vehicles.
Civil forfeiture allows authorities to take someone’s property, without having to prove that it has been used for illicit purposes. Critics of the practice describe it as “legalized theft.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority that a civil forfeiture hearing to determine whether an owner will lose the property permanently must be timely. But he said the Constitution does not also require a separate hearing about whether police may keep cars or other property in the meantime.
In a dissent for the liberal members of the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that civil forfeiture is “vulnerable to abuse” because police departments often have a financial incentive to keep the property.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
While the majority may be correct about the Constitution part, agencies now have more incentive to drag their feet, cause delays, drive up costs to get victims to give up.
Americans should not have to live under such fear and power.
This entire body of law is contrary to the constitution.
It’s a taking.
One of the many things congress can act on but won’t because they believe other things are more important.
Civil forfeture should be illegal.
Evidence.
Without the vehicle, how do you prove transport?
If there was a speedy trial, as mandated by the Constitution, they wouldn’t need to hold property for evidence.
Of course, if the defendant’s lawyers keep delaying the trial, then the “innocent” property owners are SOL.
But how innocent are you if you let drug dealers use your car or home? I guess it can happen, though.
You and me both, and it's scaring me...
That would be temporary, at best. Until the end of the trial.
But photos and direct testimony and all sorts of other ways prove transport. It’s not like they march a jury out and look at a vehicle.
The 6 are *WAY* on the wrong side on this one.
Disgusting.
This has extended far beyond just drugs in cars. There have been a number of stories done of cash forfeitures in Atlanta airport. They pull people aside as they are boarding and take their cash. Never consent to searches. Make them produce a search warrant. Miss your flight and protect your 4th Amendment rights.
If there only was a political party that stood up for the principles of fairness and wasn’t a craven toady to the bureaucracies.
“One of the many things congress can act on but won’t because they believe other things are more important.”
They don’t want to do anything because civil asset forfeiture is a major source of funding for police, sheriff’s and federal law enforcement.
And it is funding they don’t have to go to electeds and ask for. The law enforcement agencies seize and then keep the assets under various sharing rules worked out between feds and states.
Seizing citizens property should not be a funding source for law enforcement. Nor should it be a way to bankrupt defendants so they can’t afford a defense lawyer. This procedure is used abusively and should be banned.
Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined.
Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Sotomayor wrote in dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
6 to 3, it looks like.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/an-observation-about-culley-v-marshall
Terrible ruling.
They should also get rid of the RICO act. If the government can’t make a case against drug kingpins with all the money they have, then let the drug kingpins win in court.
There is certainly no Justice in Halls of Law at SCOTUS.
C’mon! You mean the “Wide Latina”. LOL
Two of the worst excesses of governmental overreach are caused by “qualified immunity” and “civil asset forfeiture”. The first renders constitutional protections meaningless. If the police violate your rights there is no remedy. If you can’t sue them. The second greatly diminishes the protections of the fourth amendment.
Wow, I’m actually agreeing with the wise Latina.
You and me both, and it’s scaring me...
First, you mean the “Wide Latina”. Second, the problem here isn’t whether we agree with her wideness, its there is no law to close the loop. Kavanaugh is right, the constitution doesn’t make a declaration so its up to the states; and her wideness’ sentiment is right, but there should be laws to close the loops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.