SCOTUS: Preliminary Hearings Are Not Required For Seized Personal Property Before Forfeiture

In a recent decision delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court held that due process does not require a preliminary hearing before the government seizes personal property for civil forfeiture. A post-seizure forfeiture hearing is enough.

The case involves two separate 2019 events in Alabama involving Halima Culley and Lena Sutton, two vehicle owners who loaned their cars to others. Culley loaned her car to her son, who police officers pulled over, and was found to be in possession of marijuana and a loaded handgun. Sutton loaned her car to a friend, who officers pulled over, and was found to be in possession of a large amount of methamphetamine. In both cases, the officers arrested the vehicle operator and seized the car incident to the arrests.

Alabama law allowed civil forfeiture of a car used to commit or facilitate a drug crime. The state then initiates a forfeiture case and a forfeiture hearing is held. An owner may assert an affirmative defense that he or she lacked knowledge of the car’s connection to the drug crime. Before the forfeiture hearing, the owner of the vehicle may post bond in an amount double the value of the vehicle.

That is exactly what happened here. Alabama filed a forfeiture complaint on both cars. Culley and Sutton answered the complaints and raised the affirmative defenses that they had no knowledge of the drug crimes. The Alabama state courts ordered the return of the cars. Both processes took over one year.

While the forfeiture cases were ongoing, Culley and Sutton separately filed class action complaints in federal court, seeking money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They claimed the state officials violated their due process rights by retaining their cars during the forfeiture processes without holding preliminary hearings. The district courts entered summary judgment against Culley and Sutton. Culley and Sutton appealed the district courts’ decisions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit consolidated the two cases and affirmed. The court of appeals found that a timely forfeiture hearing affords claimants due process and no separate preliminary hearing is constitutionally required. The vehicle owners brought the case to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari because of a conflict in the courts of appeals over whether the Constitution requires a preliminary hearing in civil forfeiture cases.

In prior Supreme Court precedent, United States v. Von Neumann, the Supreme Court held that a timely forfeiture hearing satisfies due process in civil forfeiture cases, and in United States v. $8,850, the Court specified the standard for when forfeiture hearings are timely. As explained by the Court, following that precedent, some states have required that a forfeiture hearing occur within a fixed period of time, others require a jury trial, others condition civil forfeiture on a successful criminal prosecution, and still others require preliminary hearings.

Before the Supreme Court, Culley and Sutton argued that a preliminary hearing was constitutionally necessary to determine whether states may retain seized personal property pending the forfeiture hearing. Alabama disagreed, arguing that a preliminary hearing is not constitutionally required, and that it would necessitate a major change in state and federal governments’ longstanding practices of not requiring a preliminary hearing in civil forfeiture cases. Alabama also argued that a preliminary hearing would impact law enforcement activities.

The Supreme Court found that its prior decisions in $8,850 and Von Neumann resolved this issue, finding that due process requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing. In the Court’s opinion, a timely forfeiture hearing “satisfies any due process right” that has been seized for civil forfeiture.

Culley and Sutton contended that Mathews v. Eldridge should be the test for deciding when additional process is due and that under Mathews, a preliminary hearing would be required in civil forfeiture cases. The Court again disagreed with the vehicle owners, stating that a timely forfeiture hearing protects the interests of both the claimant and the government and any additional preliminary hearing would interfere with important law enforcement activities in the period after the seizure and before the forfeiture hearing.

The Supreme Court further stated that the vehicle owners were not even requesting a mere probable cause hearing, they were arguing that the immediate seizure of property requires adversarial preliminary hearings. The Court explained that the vehicle owners were effectively asserting that the Due Process Clause requires more extensive preliminary procedures for the temporary retention of property than for the temporary restraint of persons. Per the Supreme Court, “[t]he Due Process Clause does not demand that incongruity.”

Justice Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson.

Read the full case: Culley v. Marshall