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.
Related articles:
Related suggestion:
SW China begins trial operation of interprovincial lowSydney mall stabbing: Officer, bystanders hailed for confronting and stopping attackerChina sees robust recovery, vigorous growth in cultural, tourism industries: ministerInterview: MercedesChina's industrial output up 7 pct in JanChina targets economic growth of around 5 pct in 2024Lok Sabha elections 2024: BJP vows to turn India into manufacturing hubChina's central bank to further optimize financial servicesBarges break loose on Ohio River in Pittsburgh, damaging a marina and striking a bridgeChina's industrial profits up 10.2 pct in first 2 months
2.7408s , 6501.2421875 kb
Copyright © 2024 Powered by Divided Supreme Court rules no quick hearing required when police seize property ,Stellar Standpoint news portal