No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes, SCOTUS rules
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against two women who loaned their cars to others arrested for drug crimes while using the vehicles, leading Alabama police to seek civil forfeiture of the cars. (Image from Shutterstock)
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against two women who loaned their cars to others arrested for drug crimes while using the vehicles, leading Alabama police to seek civil forfeiture of the cars.
The car owners, Halima Culley and Lena Sutton, had argued that they were entitled to a preliminary hearing to determine whether police could retain their cars during the forfeiture process. Their cars were seized under an Alabama law that allows police to seize vehicles used to commit or facilitate drug crimes.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment requires a timely forfeiture hearing in cases involving the seizure of personal property—but it does not require a separate preliminary hearing.
The Supreme Court said Congress and the states have long authorized police to seize and hold personal property pending a forfeiture hearing, without separate preliminary hearings. That historical practice is reinforced by two Supreme Court cases that resolve the issue, the high court said.
One of the cases is the 1983 decision in United States v. $8,850, which created a four-factor test to assess the timeliness of a forfeiture hearing, the majority said in an opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“Culley and Sutton’s argument for a separate preliminary hearing appears in many respects to be a backdoor argument for a more timely hearing so that a property owner with a good defense against forfeiture can recover her property more quickly,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But the court’s precedents already require a timely hearing, and a property owner can of course raise $8,850-based arguments in an individual case to ensure a timely hearing.”
Kavanaugh’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence, joined by Thomas. He said he agreed with the majority that a prompt hearing is required in civil forfeiture cases, and the hearing doesn’t have to take the form advocated by Culley and Sutton.
But Gorsuch said he also agrees with the dissent “that this case leaves many larger questions unresolved about whether, and to what extent, contemporary civil forfeiture practices can be squared with the Constitution’s promise of due process.”
The case is Culley v. Marshall.
