In Culley v. Marshall, published May 9, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 seeking damages for violation of due process. Both plaintiffs were innocent vehicle owners whose vehicles were seized under civil forfeiture because they loaned the vehicles to drivers who possessed or were trafficking drugs. In both cases, the state promptly filed forfeiture cases, but the cases took time to resolve. The plaintiffs contended that the state violated due process by retaining their vehicles until the forfeiture hearings without first holding a preliminary hearing.
The majority held, 6-3, that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, due process requires a timely forfeiture hearing, but does not require a preliminary hearing. The court relied both on its precedent discussing forfeiture hearings and on historical practice.
Two justices concurred in the decision, but wrote separately to criticize civil forfeiture. Three justices dissented, opining that due process requires a retention hearing before the state holds personal property for months or years pending a forfeiture hearing.
Comments