Divided Supreme Court rules no quick hearing required when police seize property

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 11:54 AM EDT, May 9, 2024


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.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-asset-forfeiture-hearing-sotomayor-d1aafeb7a114d9774210342912e14f44

[SamKnause]

1. The supremes don't want to take any power away from the cops.

They have to keep that money rolling in.

Keep pretending this has anything to do with drugs.

[OldBaldy1701E]

2. Of course not.

I mean, they have lost the means to just make lots of money across the nation as 18 states have removed the means to seize everything within a five mile area just because someone had a half of a joint on their porch railing. How else are they going to get that big screen and those expensive cars if not seizing them from other people?

[Attilatheblond]

3. So, the SCOTUS went along with law enforcment engaging in theft.

By holding property for extended time, police are denying people use of property which may be essential, like, oh, say getting to and from work so people can pay rent and eat.

[ShazzieB]

4. Sotomayor is right, as usual.

And it doesn't matter, as usual, because the supermajority will always outvote her, Kagan, and Jackson. Le sigh.

At least dissenting opinions become part of the official record, and law students will have to read them when they study these cases in law school. Better than nothing, I guess.

[wolfie001]

11. The six, sick RW clown posse................nt

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Ridiculous. And that property should be available to owners to pledge as collateral

for a loan to fill the vacancy in their capital caused by LE seizures.

[NanaCat]

16. A guaranteed interest free-loan issued not by a bank

But the seizing jurisdiction. And 10 years to repay it.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. This Subversive Court continues to damage logic and the rule of law.

[dickthegrouch]

7. A civil suit naming the driver for consequential damages is the probable recourse.

That’s what I would do. Make it entirely the miscreant’s problem.
Seek an open ended judgement payable monthly for both the rental of a comparable vehicle and the ongoing payments and insurance for the impounded vehicle. IMHO that should be a slam dunk.

[24601]

8. That may be viable in some cases; however, what happens when the respondent has few or no resources from which to

collect. Conversely, the police usually have sufficient resources or are backed by the faith and credit of their state or local government, Collect from law enforcement, and taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. A few years of rising taxes due to police misconduct may be sufficient for voters to elect new representatives.

My solution is that there should be no forfeiture without an authorizing court judgment.

[Hekate]

9. That just does not sound right or just

[wolfie001]

10. They'll never catch me driving through those red states

That'll learn 'em.

[onetexan]

12. Cars did not exist when the constitution was written

They had horse & buggy 🤨

[Wonder Why]

13. Sir, do you know how fast you were going in your buggy? can I see your horse license?

I agree with everyone else here. Innocent people need to have a way to get their property back quickly. And there should be no incentive for police departments to seize property except that it reduces crime. Seized property should be used for crime prevention programs like education and training of both children and perpetrators, not police vehicles, armor, etc.

[AZLD4Candidate]

14. I bet you cops will remember this, but will still think filming them in public is illegal. Any takers?

[Martin68]

15. Fascist fucks.

[BlueKota]

17. So sad that 6 of the 9

are legitimizing crime, and devaluing the laws that are meant to protect citizens from the criminals.

Pretty obvious the courts run by Republicans aren't holding and they are rapidly losing any sense of legitimacy.

[NowsTheTime]

18. Good idea or bad idea? Ad high-lighting some of scotus decisions recently? n/t