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.
Landmark Paris trial of Syrian officials accused of torturing, killing a father and his son starts
Blooming wonderful: Britain's best springtime escapes, from award
Top scientist warns AI could surpass human intelligence by 2027
How to sort your pension and Isa before the tax year ends: This is Money podcast
Parker and Sloan combine to pitch a three
Video tour of Gatwick's futuristic electric vehicle charging station
Shed of the Year 2024: We speak to one entrant who created his dream British boozer 'The Dirty Dog'
Mercedes upgrades its electric EQS to give the EV a huge 511 mile
Serie A champion Inter facing a nervous wait as deadline passes for loan repayment to Oaktree
Why Temple Bar backs cheap shares like M&S, BP and Royal Mail: INVESTING SHOW