Two Alabama women spent more than a year trying to reclaim vehicles they owned, which the police had confiscated after arresting their drivers on drug charges.
“Culley and Sutton’s argument fora separate preliminary hearing appears in many respects to be a backdoor argument fora more timely hearing so that a property owner witha good defense against forfeiture can recover her property more quickly,” he wrote. “But the court’s precedents already requirea timely hearing.”
Alabama has since amended its forfeiture law to allow owners of seized property to request expedited hearings.
“Our decision today does not preclude those legislatively prescribed innovations,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “Rather, our decision simply addresses the base-line protection ofthe due process clause.”
Seems like it’s less about civil forfeiture and more about how quickly can they get their property back when civil forfeiture happens
Impounding = you just have to pay to get car back.
Civil forfeiture = you have lost your vehicle, but there is a process to overturn the seizure.
The fact that there is a way to reverse a decision does not mean the default difference is that the former expects you to get it back and the latter is set up that you don’t get it back (unless you do a bunch of extra steps).
You do realize the original comment was simply describing the reason for the lawsuit and you commented “I think you are confused.”
From the article “Ms. Culley and Ms. Sutton filed class actions in federal court saying that they should have been afforded prompt interim hearings to argue…”
They are literally saying they wanted to be able to streamline this process and get their stuff back faster. Explaining the difference between impounding and civil forfeiture doesn’t change the content of the article. The original comment was accurate in describing what the article was about.
No, the fact that it is civil forfeiture, which is handled differently than impounding, is relevant for a post that says:
how quickly can they get their property back when civil forfeiture happens
That wording implies that they will get their property back, when the default for civil forfeiture is not getting their property back. Expediting the hearings doesn’t change the underlying issue of civil forfeiture being the police taking away people’s stuff for a reason that has nothing to do with their arrests and forcing people to justify getting it back.
It will also speed up the cases where they are not given their stuff back.
Then you should have said that in your original response.
Like it was said, if you had originally read the article or look into it before commenting you would know they already got their cars back. Meaning your staunch stands that they don’t get their stuff back is false.
Even if you had done a simple Wikipedia search you would understand that there is a hearing. That means you can fight it and get your stuff back. A preponderance of evidence is required for civil asset forfeiture.
The Supreme Court case is about the intentional delay of the hearing for civil asset forfeiture. So that means they can represent themselves or pay for legal counsel to get their stuff back in a reasonable time. (Due process, fifth and 14th amendment. The government cannot deprive anyone of life liberty or property.) clearly we are talking about property here.
Don’t get me wrong civil asset forfeiture should not exist, and is an abomination to our rights. However, you need to accept that you were wrong with your comment towards Chestnut for giving a simplified explanation of what the root caused for the case was.
“Culley and Sutton’s argument for a separate preliminary hearing appears in many respects to be a backdoor argument for a more timely hearing so that a property owner with a good defense against forfeiture can recover her property more quickly,” he wrote. “But the court’s precedents already require a timely hearing.” Alabama has since amended its forfeiture law to allow owners of seized property to request expedited hearings. “Our decision today does not preclude those legislatively prescribed innovations,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “Rather, our decision simply addresses the base-line protection of the due process clause.”Seems like it’s less about civil forfeiture and more about how quickly can they get their property back when civil forfeiture happens
I think you have confused civil forfeiture with impounding.
You don’t get your stuff back from civil forfeiture.
I think you haven’t read the article
Both women literally already got their cars back
They’re suing because the process was, as another commenter said, a huge pain in the ass
Impounding = you just have to pay to get car back.
Civil forfeiture = you have lost your vehicle, but there is a process to overturn the seizure.
The fact that there is a way to reverse a decision does not mean the default difference is that the former expects you to get it back and the latter is set up that you don’t get it back (unless you do a bunch of extra steps).
You do realize the original comment was simply describing the reason for the lawsuit and you commented “I think you are confused.”
From the article “Ms. Culley and Ms. Sutton filed class actions in federal court saying that they should have been afforded prompt interim hearings to argue…”
They are literally saying they wanted to be able to streamline this process and get their stuff back faster. Explaining the difference between impounding and civil forfeiture doesn’t change the content of the article. The original comment was accurate in describing what the article was about.
No, the fact that it is civil forfeiture, which is handled differently than impounding, is relevant for a post that says:
That wording implies that they will get their property back, when the default for civil forfeiture is not getting their property back. Expediting the hearings doesn’t change the underlying issue of civil forfeiture being the police taking away people’s stuff for a reason that has nothing to do with their arrests and forcing people to justify getting it back.
It will also speed up the cases where they are not given their stuff back.
Then you should have said that in your original response.
Like it was said, if you had originally read the article or look into it before commenting you would know they already got their cars back. Meaning your staunch stands that they don’t get their stuff back is false.
Even if you had done a simple Wikipedia search you would understand that there is a hearing. That means you can fight it and get your stuff back. A preponderance of evidence is required for civil asset forfeiture.
The Supreme Court case is about the intentional delay of the hearing for civil asset forfeiture. So that means they can represent themselves or pay for legal counsel to get their stuff back in a reasonable time. (Due process, fifth and 14th amendment. The government cannot deprive anyone of life liberty or property.) clearly we are talking about property here.
Don’t get me wrong civil asset forfeiture should not exist, and is an abomination to our rights. However, you need to accept that you were wrong with your comment towards Chestnut for giving a simplified explanation of what the root caused for the case was.
You definitely can, but the process is (by design) a giant pain in the ass.