The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court seems to be leaning towards supporting Alabama officials in a case involving the seizure and impoundment of cars after drug arrests, even when the owners have no direct connection to the alleged crime. The case revolves around the power of law enforcement to retain property seized from individuals who have not been charged with a crime.
Two women, Lena Sutton and Halima Culley, had their vehicles seized when someone else was arrested for drug possession while driving their cars. Despite their pleas, it took 14 months for Sutton and 20 months for Culley to have their cars returned. They filed separate class-action lawsuits seeking damages against Alabama officials and the cities where the arrests took place.
With a 6-3 conservative majority, some of the Supreme Court justices seemed to believe that Alabama’s existing legal process is sufficient. They suggested that property owners could expedite the process by promptly asking the courts to issue a summary judgment in their favor.
Civil forfeiture laws allow the government to seize and keep property, including vehicles and real estate, that are believed to have been used in or connected to a crime, even if the owner has not been convicted or charged. Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the abuses of the forfeiture system and the incentive it creates for law enforcement to seize and retain property for extended periods.
Some states require the government to promptly demonstrate that seized property is likely involved in illegal activity. If they fail to do so, the assets must be returned while the court determines the owner’s right to the property.
Since the lawsuits were filed, Alabama has amended its civil forfeiture law to allow innocent owners to request a hearing at any time after their property is seized. Previously, Alabama did not mandate a prompt pretrial retention hearing, which led to the question of whether these hearings are necessary to fulfill constitutional due process requirements.
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns that mandatory retention hearings may compromise a judge’s final ruling on whether the property should be returned or forfeited. The preservation of the property itself was highlighted as one of the basic considerations.
The plaintiffs lost their lawsuits in federal court, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld those decisions. President Joe Biden’s administration supported Alabama in this case.
