Divided Supreme Court rules no quick hearing required when police seize property
Time:2024-05-22 11:22:47 Source:businessViews(143)
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.
Previous:Broncos linebacker Drew Sanders to miss most of '24 season after tearing an Achilles tendon
Next:South Carolina governor vetoes bills to erase criminal history in gun and bad check cases
You may also like
- Kansas takes control in the ninth and beats Kansas State in the opener of the Big 12 Tournament
- China's high
- Jeff Bezos' fiancée Lauren Sanchez quietly SCRAPS self
- Outfielder Tommy Pham returns to major leagues with the MLB
- China sanctions former US lawmaker who supported Taiwan
- 1 climber dead, another seriously hurt after 1,000
- Harvey Weinstein due back in court, while a key witness weighs whether to testify at a retrial
- China to establish modern eco
- A tiny Michigan town's century