WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that authorities do not have to provide a quick hearing when they seize cars and other property used in drug crimes, even when the property belongs to so-called innocent owners. By a 6-3 vote, the justices rejected the claims of two Alabama women who had to wait more than a year for their cars to be returned. Police had stopped the cars when they were being driven by other people and, after finding drugs, seized the vehicles. Civil forfeiture allows authorities to take someone’s property, without having to prove that it has been used for illicit purposes. Critics of the practice describe it as “legalized theft.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority that a civil forfeiture hearing to determine whether an owner will lose the property permanently must be timely. But he said the Constitution does not also require a separate hearing about whether police may keep cars or other property in the meantime. |
Chinese shipbuilding enterprise to build 18 ultraForeigners make nearly 3M inbound, outbound trips to China in JanIran condemns sanctions by US, Britain, CanadaHamas says to halt Gaza ceasefire negotiations if Israel attacks RafahGlobal think tank forum highlights future industries, innovationSwiatek returns to Madrid Open final by beating Keys in straight setsChinese vice president meets Argentine foreign ministerSwiatek returns to Madrid Open final by beating Keys in straight setsSo you've lost weight using Wegovy. Does that mean you can stop taking it?Farmer who demolished a 17th century Grade II listed dovecote without permission is fined £45,000