The U.S. Supreme Court Monday granted certiorari to an appeal that asks about civil forfeiture.
Culley v. Attorney General of Alabama was the only case granted certiorari review in an April 17 list of orders from the high court and asks if the Due Process Clause requires courts to hold a post-seizure probable cause hearing before a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding and, if so, does speedy trial requirements or a three-part due process analysis apply. The case asks the court to resolve a newly created circuit split on when such hearings need to take place.
The appeal is part of two lawsuits brought against government officials connected to the civil forfeiture of vehicles in Alabama.
The first plaintiff Halima Culley had her vehicle seized in 2019 in connection with her son’s arrest. Culley filed a complaint arguing since she was not connected with the crime her car was taken in connection with and since she was not given a prompt post-seizure hearing to determine if her car should be retained during a pending civil asset forfeiture case against her, her rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. Culley’s car was eventually returned after she successfully filed a motion in the civil asset forfeiture case and a judge found since she owned the car and was not charged or convicted of any connected crimes, civil forfeiture didn’t apply.
Lena Sutton filed a federal class action complaint against the city of Leesburg, Alabama, alleging she was improperly deprived of her car that was seized during a pending civil asset forfeiture case since she wasn’t granted a prompt, post-deprivation hearing to determine if her car should remain seized pending the civil asset forfeiture case. Sutton’s car was also returned after a court found since she had no knowledge of the use of her car in a crime, Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture statute didn’t apply to her.
Sutton and Culley kept their 14th Amendment and Eighth Amendment complaints in place and sought monetary compensation for the time their cars were seized without a post-seizure hearing. Two federal district courts ruled in favor of the defendants and the cases were later consolidated on appeal.
A panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2022 affirmed the lower courts’ rulings finding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling in Barker v. Wingo applied to the due process question of retaining the cars pending the civil asset forfeiture proceeding.
But, as the plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari review pointed out, other circuits have rejected applying Barker in such cases. The 2nd Circuit, the 5th Circuit and the 7th Circuit have applied the due process balancing test created by the court’s 1976 ruling in Mathews v. Eldridge.
The U.S. Supreme Court considered a similar appeal in 2009 when it heard Alvarez v. Smith but never addressed the question of what test controls questions of post-seizure hearings.
The case is not currently scheduled on the docket.