Supreme Court to consider how long states can draw out forfeiture hearings

Should law enforcement authorities be allowed to keep indefinitely seized property without a prompt hearing on the fairness of the seizure and subsequent forfeiture?

That is the question two women are putting to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has accepted the case.

Culley v. Marshall challenges the constitutionality of Alabama’s civil forfeiture laws because they do not provide for a prompt post-seizure hearing. The plaintiffs, Halima Culley and Lena Sutton, each had their vehicles seized for alleged drug crimes committed by their son and roommate, respectively. Neither was given a prompt post-seizure hearing.

After property is seized, the state can keep the property through a process called civil asset forfeiture. At question in this case is whether the state of Alabama abides by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees a speedy trial, by drawing out the process. The Supreme Court agreed April 17 to hear the case.

The cases in question

On Feb. 17, 2019, Halima Tariffa Culley’s son was pulled over by police while driving a car registered to his mother. Police arrested him and charged him with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and seized the vehicle. Culley unsuccessfully tried to retrieve the vehicle, and on Feb. 27, 2019, the state of Alabama filed a civil asset forfeiture action in state court. After 20 months, the state court granted Culley summary judgment, finding she was entitled to the return of her vehicle under Alabama’s innocent-owner defense.

Culley filed a class action lawsuit in federal court claiming that the failure of the state and local officials to provide a prompt post-deprivation hearing violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court ruled for the state and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the ruling.

In the companion case, Lena Sutton loaned her car to a friend, who used it to carry drugs without telling her. The friend was pulled over in Leesburg, Ala., and drugs were found. Her car was seized. The city kept the car more than a year before there was a court hearing on the forfeiture. The judgment went in favor of Sutton. Her due process complaint, however, was denied Sept. 13, 2021.

Amicus brief, two similar forfeiture cases

The Institute for Justice filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief in the case on behalf of it and two other victims of civil asset forfeiture abuse.

“Delay is one of the government’s most potent weapons in civil forfeiture cases,” Institute for Justice attorney Rob Johnson, the author of the brief, said in a statement. “Forced to wait months or even years for a hearing, many property owners simply give up, and others agree to unfair settlements where they give up half or more of their property just to get the remainder back. We’re urging the Supreme Court to make clear those kinds of tactics violate due process. Victims of civil forfeiture are entitled to have their cases heard in a timely manner.”

The Institute for Justice brief related the stories of its clients Gerardo Serrano and Stephanie Wilson, both of whom have signed onto the brief.

Serrano’s truck was seized in 2015 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Eagle Pass, Texas. Agents seized the truck because five low-caliber bullets were found in the glove box. There was no gun.

When Serrano asked for a court hearing, he was required to send CBP a check for $3,800. The check was deposited quickly, but for more than two years he was denied a hearing in front of a judge. After Serrano and the Institute for Justice sued, CBP returned the truck.

Over the two years that CBP kept the truck, Serrano had to make monthly car payments of $672 for a vehicle he could not drive. He also spent more than $1,000 to keep the vehicle registered and paid thousands of dollars on rental cars to get around.

“I signed onto this brief because I know firsthand how important a prompt hearing is,” Serrano said in the Institute for Justice’s statement. “I don’t want anyone else to have to wait years and waste thousands of dollars just to get back something that never should’ve been taken from them in the first place.”

Wilson’s case is similar.

In 2019, police in Wayne County, Mich., seized Wilson’s car. Officers found no evidence she had done anything wrong, but authorities kept the vehicle for several months.

In April 2021, a judge ruled that there was no evidence of wrongdoing and that her car must immediately be returned. However, when Wilson showed up at the tow yard, the private company – acting on instruction from the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office – refused to turn the vehicle over to its rightful owner. The Institute for Justice then filed a motion to enforce the judge’s order.

After nearly two full years, Wilson’s car was returned to her.

Echoes of cases involving truck drivers

While neither of the cases above involved truck drivers, a couple of cases in recent years involving truckers echo similar problems.

It took North Carolina truck driver Jerry Johnson more than two and half years to get back money seized when he flew to Phoenix to buy a truck at an auction.

Another case involving a truck driver also was long drawn out, but the man whose money was seized hasn’t gotten it back yet despite a jury trial in Texas in May. More than $40,000 was seized from Ameal Woods, who said he was driving to purchase a semitruck. In that case, prosecutors took 27 months to notify Woods that the state intended to his money. LL