Divided Supreme Court rules no quick hearing required when police seize property
Time:2024-05-22 11:22:00 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:Melissa Rivers reveals her unconventional approach to planning her second wedding
Next:Turkish Airlines resumes flights to Afghanistan nearly 3 years after the Taliban captured Kabul
You may also like
- Reeves hits grand slam, South Carolina eliminates Alabama 10
- ‘There’s Still Tomorrow’ director Paola Cortellesi talks success, toxic relationships and hope
- Mark Wahlberg, 52, flaunts his muscles in shirtless video flexing during 4am workout
- What to expect in New York's special congressional election
- NFL increases its commitment to flag football, creating a new VP position to help grow the sport
- Becky G dazzles in ab
- Becky G dazzles in ab
- Philippine police kill an Abu Sayyaf militant implicated in 15 beheadings and other atrocities
- Thailand welcomes the return of trafficked antiquities from New York's Metropolitan Museum