Under SCOTUS rules, no special hearing is required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug offenses

1. Home
2. News
3. No separate hearing required if the police…

US Supreme Court

Under SCOTUS rules, no special hearing is required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug offenses

By Debra Cassens Weiss

May 9, 2024, 10:44 am CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against two women who loaned their cars to other people arrested on drug charges while they were using the vehicles, prompting Alabama police to seek civil forfeiture of the cars.

Car owners Halima Culley and Lena Sutton had argued that they were entitled to a preliminary hearing to determine whether police could keep their cars during the forfeiture process. Their cars were seized under an Alabama law that allows police to seize vehicles used to commit or facilitate drug crimes.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires a timely forfeiture hearing in cases involving the seizure of personal property – but a separate preliminary hearing is not required.

The Supreme Court explained that Congress and states have long authorized police to seize personal property and hold it pending a forfeiture hearing without a separate preliminary hearing. This historic practice is supported by two Supreme Court cases that resolve the issue, the high court said.

One of the cases is the 1983 decision United States vs. $8,850that established a four-factor test for assessing the timeliness of a forfeiture hearing, the majority said in an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“Culley and Sutton’s argument for a separate preliminary hearing appears in many ways to be a backdoor argument for a timely hearing so that a property owner with a good forfeiture defense can more quickly recover her property,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But the court’s precedents already require a timely hearing, and a property owner can of course file a lawsuit $8,850-based arguments on a case-by-case basis to ensure a timely hearing.”

Kavanaugh’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence, along with Thomas. He said he agreed with the majority that an immediate hearing is required in civil forfeiture cases and that the hearing need not take the form advocated by Culley and Sutton.

But Gorsuch said he also agreed with the dissent “that this case leaves open many larger questions about whether and to what extent contemporary civil forfeiture practices can be reconciled with the Constitution’s promise of due process.”

The case is Culley v. Marshall.