Reply With Quote
Culley v. Marshall
https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-pol...iture-5a529ff2On Monday the Supreme Court will hear a case to decide whether the Cons ution requires a prompt hearing after law enforcement seizes vehicles for civil forfeiture. The plaintiffs in Culley v. Marshall had their vehicles seized because a family member and friend allegedly possessed drugs while borrowing them. Law enforcement held each car for over a year without a hearing.
In Culley v. Marshall, the state of Alabama argues that prompt hearings would be unworkable because police need time to investigate after they take cars. But that gets the working of the justice system backward. Police need to investigate before they take property, not after. If it’s unclear property is involved in a crime, police shouldn’t seize it in the first place.
The Supreme Court should take a page from the Sixth Circuit. If the government takes a person’s car—for many, their most crucial asset—then it should at least provide a speedy hearing.
