Supreme Court must stop governments seizing innocent people’s property.
Get ready for a groundbreaking Supreme Court case! The upcoming term will feature the highly anticipated hearing of Culley v. Attorney General of Alabama. This case will delve into the issue of civil forfeiture, a controversial practice that allows law enforcement to seize private property based on mere suspicion of criminal involvement. The central question is whether innocent property owners have the right to a prompt hearing to reclaim their seized assets.
The Supreme Court often looks to history and tradition for guidance in its decisions. In this case, the court will examine the historical context of civil forfeiture during the founding period. While some argue that court precedent dismisses the need for hearings, the Remission Act of 1790 reveals that the Founders were committed to ensuring fairness and justice in civil forfeiture proceedings.
The plaintiffs in Culley are two innocent parties who have been deprived of their vehicles for over a year without a chance to prove their innocence and reclaim their property. The court will determine whether innocent property owners are entitled to a prompt hearing and establish the criteria for determining if a procedural delay violates due process.
Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall opposes the cert petition, arguing that the Constitution treats guilty and innocent property owners the same in civil forfeiture cases. According to Marshall, the guilt or innocence of the property owner is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the seizure. However, historical evidence suggests that the Founders placed greater emphasis on guilt in civil forfeiture proceedings.
Uncovering the Founding Period
Let’s dive into the fascinating history of civil forfeiture during the founding period. Initially used by the English crown to combat piracy and enforce colonial laws, civil forfeiture became a means for the young United States to collect customs duties. Recognizing the potential for abuse, Alexander Hamilton advocated for the Remission Act of 1790, which aimed to protect innocent property owners and establish a fair administrative avenue for forfeiture recovery.
Under the Remission Act, secretaries of the Treasury had the power to return forfeited property to owners. Research shows that secretaries granted remission in 91 percent of cases between 1789 and 1807. However, the current practice of the U.S. Department of Justice only returns 3 percent of seized assets to owners.
The early government prioritized giving property owners a fair chance to be heard. Secretaries even accepted lenient explanations for law-breaking owners, granting remission for difficulties in complying with customs laws or ignorance of the law. This demonstrates a deliberate effort to enforce civil forfeiture penalties only on intentional criminals, highlighting the historical significance of guilt or innocence in the process.
Expanding the Remission Act
Although the Remission Act still exists today, its scope has become limited. Originally designed for customs cases, civil forfeiture has expanded far beyond its initial purpose due to the War on Drugs. The act’s provisions are now ineffective in helping Americans reclaim their forfeited property.
In the past two decades, the federal government has seized a staggering $68.8 billion under 377 different federal statutes authorizing forfeiture. However, remission is rarely granted to everyday Americans who have their cars, cash, watches, and homes seized. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) theoretically provides an innocent owner defense, but procedural difficulties make it nearly impossible to assert this defense in court. Additionally, CAFRA does not apply to state or certain types of federal forfeiture.
It is crucial for the Supreme Court to recognize the historical context and legislative intent behind civil forfeiture. The Founders, led by Hamilton, were determined to protect the liberty and property rights of innocent owners. The court’s decision in Culley will shape the future of civil forfeiture and determine whether it aligns with the principles established by the Founders.
rnrn
How does the current practice of the U.S. Department of Justice in returning seized assets to owners compare to the principles and intentions of the Founders regarding civil forfeiture proceedings
Get ready for a groundbreaking Supreme Court case! The upcoming term will feature the highly anticipated hearing of Culley v. Attorney General of Alabama. This case will delve into the issue of civil forfeiture, a controversial practice that allows law enforcement to seize private property based on mere suspicion of criminal involvement. The central question is whether innocent property owners have the right to a prompt hearing to reclaim their seized assets.
The Supreme Court often looks to history and tradition for guidance in its decisions. In this case, the court will examine the historical context of civil forfeiture during the founding period. While some argue that court precedent dismisses the need for hearings, the Remission Act of 1790 reveals that the Founders were committed to ensuring fairness and justice in civil forfeiture proceedings.
The plaintiffs in Culley are two innocent parties who have been deprived of their vehicles for over a year without a chance to prove their innocence and reclaim their property. The court will determine whether innocent property owners are entitled to a prompt hearing and establish the criteria for determining if a procedural delay violates due process.
Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall opposes the cert petition, arguing that the Constitution treats guilty and innocent property owners the same in civil forfeiture cases. According to Marshall, the guilt or innocence of the property owner is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the seizure. However, historical evidence suggests that the Founders placed greater emphasis on guilt in civil forfeiture proceedings.
Uncovering the Founding Period
Let’s dive into the fascinating history of civil forfeiture during the founding period. Initially used by the English crown to combat piracy and enforce colonial laws, civil forfeiture became a means for the young United States to collect customs duties. Recognizing the potential for abuse, Alexander Hamilton advocated for the Remission Act of 1790, which aimed to protect innocent property owners and establish a fair administrative avenue for forfeiture recovery.
Under the Remission Act, secretaries of the Treasury had the power to return forfeited property to owners. Research shows that secretaries granted remission in 91 percent of cases between 1789 and 1807. However, the current practice of the U.S. Department of Justice only returns 3 percent of seized assets to owners.
The early government prioritized giving property owners a fair chance to be heard. Secretaries even accepted lenient explanations for a property’s involvement in illegal activities. The emphasis was on ensuring fairness and not unduly punishing innocent individuals.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear Culley v. Attorney General of Alabama, it will have an opportunity to revisit the principles and intentions of the Founders regarding civil forfeiture proceedings. This case has the potential to shape the future of civil forfeiture laws and determine the rights of innocent property owners in reclaiming their seized assets. It will be fascinating to see how the court navigates the historical context and balances the interests of law enforcement and individual rights.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
