Divided Supreme Court rules no quick hearing required when police seize property
Time:2024-05-22 11:17:07 Source:healthViews(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:What to stream: Lenny Kravitz, South Park, 'Dune: Part 2'
Next:French Olympic fencer Thibus says she has been cleared of any wrongdoing after abnormal doping test
You may also like
- What to stream: Lenny Kravitz, South Park, 'Dune: Part 2'
- José Soriano pitches 6 sharp innings as the Angels beat the Guardians 6
- Ministers told to redraw green plans after High Court rules UK's current net zero strategy unlawful
- Republicans file lawsuit to block count of Nevada mail ballots received after Election Day
- Israel addressed Biden’s concerns over widescale Rafah operation: US official
- Dua Lipa's 'Radical Optimism' review: Controlled but catchy dance pop
- F1 now makes 3 stops a season in the United States. Could Miami become a victim of oversaturation?
- Boarded up shops, the cost
- Protesters against war in Gaza interrupt Blinken repeatedly in the Senate