Supreme Court Rules Against Alabama Women Whose Cars Were Seized by Police

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.

Share full article

Five Supreme Court justices expressed grave misgivings about the practice of confiscating property said to have been used to commit crimes, known as civil asset forfeiture.

The Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for people whose property had been seized by the police to argue for its swift return.

By a 6-to-3 vote, the court ruled against two Alabama women who had sought prompt hearings to recover cars they owned that had been taken by the police in connection with crimes committed by others.

“After a state seizes and seeks civil forfeiture of personal property, due process requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority had adopted a wooden approach to a pressing problem.

“The majority today holds that due process never requires the minimal check of a retention hearing before a police officer deprives an innocent owner of her car for months or years,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.

Even as the court rejected the women’s argument that the Constitution requires streamlined procedures, five justices expressed grave misgivings about the practice of confiscating property said to have been used to commit crimes, known as civil asset forfeiture.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.