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. |
Christopher Luxon's reo Māori lessons paid for by taxpayerKnife attack at China school injures dozensWeather expected to worsen in NSW, QueenslandWeather expected to worsen in NSW, QueenslandCoronavirus update: Italy to get aid from Germany, Spain's death rate passes China'sShulan coronavirus: Fears new wave about to hit ChinaPM Christopher Luxon's tobacco 'talking points' contradicted official adviceMozambique ferry disaster kills more than 90'No new guns': Luxon's promise ahead of gun law reformANZ Premiership Netball: Can anyone knock over the Mystics?