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:
Chris Packham joins ecoYouth in Xinjiang celebrated the coming of Spring Festival with song and danceInterview: Uncertainty to push business away from Europe, says expertCommentary: Forced labor fallacy debunked by factsBritain's Gibraltar concessions with Spain just to reach a postNanjing Railway Station experienced a small peak of passenger flow in weekendWater conservancy repairs were organized to ensure irrigation in YangzhouThingyan water festival kicks off in MyanmarCommentary: Washington abusing national security concept leads to insecurity for allCommentary: Global community must stop Japan dumping nuclear
3.5192s , 6502.71875 kb
Copyright © 2024 Powered by Divided Supreme Court rules no quick hearing required when police seize property ,Global Glossary news portal