The federal Constitution prohibits government, at both state and federal levels, from “depriv[ing]” any “person” of his or her “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ..” See U.S. Const., Amendment V, and Amendment XIV, § 1. In Culley v. Marshall, decided on May 9, 2024, the Court ruled that that prohibition does not require a court to hold a preliminary hearing on the merits of a “civil forfeiture” proceeding before holding a full trial in that proceeding. A “civil forfeiture” proceeding is a court case in which the government seeks to obtain full ownership of property it has seized in connection with a criminal arrest (usually a car seized in connection with an arrest for carrying illegal drugs). The defendants in such “civil” proceedings are usually title holders who claim to be innocent of the related criminal offense. The vote in the Court against requiring a preliminary hearing in all “civil forfeiture” cases was 6-3, with Justices Sotomayor, Kagen, and Jackson dissenting.
Comment: Nearly every state, and the federal government, has its own “civil forfeiture” statute, under which it can obtain ownership of private property tied to a criminal case, as opposed to simply retaining possession of evidence necessary for proof in that criminal case. The Court is correct in holding that the Due Process Clauses of the federal Constitution do not require a preliminary court hearing on the government’s right to retain possession of the subject property while a final trial on the merits of a “civil forfeiture” proceeding remains pending. Nothing in the text of either Due Process Clause in the Constitution supports such a requirement. Nevertheless, the text and purpose of those clauses do imply a right, in the hands of persons claiming to be “innocent” owners of seized property, to a reasonably “prompt” hearing in court on the merits of the case. The Court’s ruling did not foreclose either the Court, or any lower court, from making a later ruling on that issue.
Dan Rhea
RECENT RULINGS 