The Supreme Court is reviewing a case on civil asset forfeiture, a practice many see as legalized theft, involving the legality of police seizing cars or other property.

On Monday, oral arguments were presented on the practice and whether the return of confiscated property should be streamlined under the News from New York.

“On the one hand, several judges said, the practice of confiscating property said to have been used to commit crimes, known as civil asset forfeiture, is easily abused,” the outlet noted.

“There are clearly some jurisdictions that use civil forfeiture as a funding mechanism,” Judge Neil M. Gorsuch said, noting that some authorities had made it difficult for innocent people to recover confiscated items.

(Audio credit: Forbes Breaking News)

“We know there are abuses of the forfeiture system,” argued Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “We know this because it has been documented across the country repeatedly.”

“Is this the case that presents the due process issue we should be concerned about?” Judge Gorsuch asked about the two cases from Alabama, questioning whether the available procedures that applied were adequate.

Justice Sotomayor expressed concern that the high court’s ruling on the issue may be too broad.

“Bad facts make bad law, and I’m afraid we may be headed in that direction,” he said. “Do we leave open the possibility that there are states, jurisdictions, that are abusing this process?”

One of the two cases occurred after Halima Culley bought a 2015 Nissan Altima for her son when he was in college. He ended up being pulled over by police in 2019 and arrested after marijuana was found in his car. His car was also impounded at that time.

SCOTUS is back, baby! Today the CT heard Culley v. Marshall, which asks what procedural protections apply when the government steals — meaning, ahem, takes your stuff. Under civil asset forfeiture, the government can take your cash, TVs, cars, etc. without arresting him, much less convicting you of a crime. pic.twitter.com/DTIjGhivs3

— A lady (@Anastasia_esq) October 31, 2023

The second case involves Lena Sutton, who loaned her 2012 Chevrolet Sonic to a friend in 2019. The friend was pulled over for speeding and arrested when methamphetamine was found in the car. This vehicle was also impounded.

The state of Alabama allows “innocent” owners to reclaim their property, and both women convinced judges to return their vehicles. It took more than a year to get each of his cars back.

“Ms. Culley and Ms. Sutton filed class actions in federal court saying they should have been granted expedited interim hearings to argue for the return of the vehicles while their cases progressed. The lower courts ruled ,” the New York Times reported.

His attorney, Shay Dvoretzky, said requiring interim hearings would be “workable and effective.”

“These cases are the most important to one group of people: innocent property owners,” Sotomayor said. “Because they are people who say they didn’t know about the criminal activity. Many of these cases involve parents with teenage or near-teenage children involved in drug activity. Those who don’t can involve spouses or friends.”

I admit that this is not the most important thing in constitutional law today. This is the argument of Culley v. Marshall, a civil forfeiture case on the right to an immediate post-seizure hearing. I’ll have to check later.https://t.co/6qRTvJrn0t

— Anthony Sanders (@IJSanders) October 30, 2023

Gorsuch has already raised issues related to civil forfeiture abuses.

He said: “There are arguments to be made that there are attempts to create processes that are deeply unfair and obviously to withhold property for state coffers.”

Gorsuch also noted that there are “allegations before us” that “some states because law enforcement uses these seizures to fund themselves” have required a property owner to turn over some of their property in exchange for getting the property back. rest or “engage in other concessions outside the usual process”.

The justice added: “We now know a lot more … about how civil forfeiture is used in some states, about the kinds of abuses to which it is subject, about the kinds of incentives that operate on law enforcement officers that tend to these abuses.”

Gorsuch returns to Thomas’ point that the facts are not so bad here. Sotomayor fears that bad facts can make bad law. If the Court does not step in here, they will give the states a balance of letters to provide as little and as poor process as they want. pic.twitter.com/cjPfYl0hdk

— A lady (@Anastasia_esq) October 31, 2023

If we “look around the world and think there are real problems here and those problems would be solved if you get a very quick determination of probable cause,” Gorsuch asked Edmund G. LaCour Jr., Alabama’s attorney general , “why shouldn’t we? do we?”

LaCour stated that “ample due process” was provided to both women. He also said the government also had a “strong interest in making sure crime doesn’t pay”.

Gorsuch asked himself at the end of the argument: “How do we write a narrow opinion that does no harm here?”

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton is a constitutional conservative who researches and writes extensively on politics and current affairs.

Latest messages from Terresa Monroe-Hamilton (see everything)

We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.

JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and good conversation. If you’ve commented with us before, we’ll need you to re-enter your email address for this. The public won’t see it and we won’t share it.