Posted inin Latest

New Court Ruling Expands Police Authority in Asset Seizures

Posted byby Gary Garcia
2 years ago
Updated 2 years ago

The recent Supreme Court decision in Culley v. Marshall has sparked significant controversy, as it raises serious concerns about property rights and due process protections in the United States.

A Modern-Day Form of Highway Robbery?

Critics argue that the ruling allows for what some describe as a ‘modern-day form of highway robbery.’ The decision is seen not only as an attack on personal property but also as an assault on fundamental rights and liberties. According to constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, “Americans no longer need to be guilty to have their property, rights, and liberties stripped away from them. You just have to possess something the government wants.”

Asset Forfeiture Tactics

This controversial practice involves police using delay tactics when they seize cash, jewelry, cars, and other valuables from individuals who may be entirely innocent of any crime. Known as “asset forfeiture” cases, these often proceed without any criminal charges against the property owner. The Rutherford Institute, a defender of constitutional, religious, and civil rights in America’s courts, has highlighted this issue extensively.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

In a 6-3 decision in Culley v. Marshall, the justices ruled that citizens do not have due process protections in asset forfeiture proceedings to contest early court hearings about the government retaining possession of their seized property while awaiting trial. This ruling has been met with significant criticism from various legal experts and civil rights organizations.

Efforts to Protect Citizens

The Rutherford Institute’s lawyers teamed up with those from the ACLU and Cato Institute to argue for an early hearing. Their goal was to protect citizens against government delay tactics that make it difficult for innocent individuals to promptly reclaim their property from police who stand to profit from the forfeiture.

Concerns Raised by Justice Gorsuch

Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out the problem of police delaying proceedings and holding onto citizens’ private property for extended periods. He mentioned how this could force owners to “settle” the dispute by paying a penalty for property they need for their work or that they love. However, his perspective was overruled by the majority.

The Lucrative Nature of Asset Forfeiture

Asset forfeiture has become a profitable enterprise for the government, with federal forfeitures alone bringing in $2.5 billion during 2018. This practice involves government agents (usually police) seizing private property they ‘suspect’ may be connected to criminal activity. Even if no crime is proven, the government keeps the citizen’s property and often shares it with local police who made the initial seizure.

The Burden on Property Owners

The government claims in such cases that some sort of property is ‘tied’ to a crime and then takes it. It then forces the owner to prove the ‘innocence’ of that property but sets up hurdles and obstacles for owners trying to reclaim their own property. The cost of challenging these takings in court can exceed the value of confiscated property itself. As Justice Gorsuch explained in his concurrence, this is why some agencies reportedly focus on seizing low-value items and relatively small amounts of cash.