Supreme Court Considers Alabama Law Allowing Vehicle Seizures In Drug Arrests
By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority showed sympathy towards Alabama officials defending a law that permits the police to impound cars after drug arrests, even when the owners have no direct ties to the alleged crime.
The case before the justices examines law enforcement’s power to retain property seized by police from individuals not charged with a crime.
During the Supreme Court hearing, two women appealed lower court rulings that rejected their claims about the government’s failure to promptly provide a court hearing to help them retrieve their seized property. They argued that this failure violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which promises that the government will not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
Lena Sutton and Halima Culley’s vehicles were seized when individuals borrowed them and were subsequently arrested for drug possession. Sutton had to wait 14 months, while Culley waited 20 months before the courts decided to return their cars. Both women filed separate class-action lawsuits seeking compensation from Alabama officials and the cities of Satsuma and Leesburg, where the arrests occurred.
Given the conservative majority of 6-3 on the Supreme Court, some of the conservative justices expressed the view that Alabama’s existing legal process is sufficient. They suggested that property owners could expedite the process by promptly requesting courts to issue a summary judgment in their favor or to rule on their case expeditiously.
“If you had filed a motion for summary judgment a week after the property had been taken, or the process had begun – forfeiture proceedings began – would you be here?” asked conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, addressing one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Civil forfeiture laws allow federal and state governments to seize and permanently retain property, such as vehicles and real estate, that is believed to have been used in or facilitated a crime, regardless of whether the owner has been convicted or charged with a criminal offense.
Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized what she referred to as “abuses of the forfeiture system.”
“It’s been extensively documented throughout the country how police are incentivized to seize property and retain its value,” Sotomayor stated. “We also know that this incentive often leads to lengthy retention of property, spanning months or even years.”
Some states require government officials to promptly demonstrate that seized property is likely tied to illegal activity. In cases where this cannot be proven, the assets must be returned while court proceedings determine the owner’s right to the property.
Since the lawsuits were filed, Alabama has made revisions to the civil forfeiture law. The changes permit someone who claims to be an innocent owner to request a hearing at any time after their property has been seized.
Alabama was among the states that did not previously mandate a prompt pretrial “retention hearing” where the government had to justify the property seizure. The Supreme Court arguments focused on whether these prompt opportunities for owners to reclaim their property are necessary to ensure constitutional due process.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, raised concerns about making retention hearings mandatory. He suggested that doing so could potentially compromise a judge’s final ruling on whether an owner’s property should be returned or forfeited, pointing to the importance of preserving the property.
The federal judges ruled against the plaintiffs in their lawsuits, and these decisions were later affirmed by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. President Joe Biden’s administration supported Alabama in this case.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)
