Federal Judge Rules Indiana Seizing Cars With Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional - Nick Sibilla, Institute for Justice - Forbes:
August 31, 2017 - "In a major win for private property rights, a federal judge ruled that Indiana can no longer seize vehicles under its controversial civil forfeiture laws, which allow police to confiscate property without filing criminal charges. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled that Indiana's laws were unconstitutional because they failed to provide a timely hearing for the property owner to contest the seizure.
"The decision comes just days after Hoosier lawmakers held a summer study committee to discuss forfeiture reform, and less than a month after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new policy to expand police seizures nationwide.
"The case began last September when an officer with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department pulled over Leroy Washington and found a small amount of cannabis. Police charged Washington with dealing marijuana and seized his car.... Washington ... filed a federal class-action lawsuit last November on behalf of other owners whose cars were held by law enforcement in Indianapolis. Between November 2016 and February 2017, those agencies seized at least 169 vehicles, or 11 cars per week on average.
"The lawsuit claimed that Indiana’s forfeiture laws violated the car owners’ right to due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Indiana, once property is seized, law enforcement can take up to 180 days to file a forfeiture complaint [and] the property owner cannot challenge the seizure during that months-long hold period. That is because, under state law, seized property is 'not subject to replevin,' a process that would allow the owners to regain wrongfully taken property while awaiting trial....
"As Judge Magnus-Stinson noted, losing one’s car for months on end 'could cause significant hardship'.... In order to prevent 'erroneous deprivation' and to safeguard due process, property owners must be 'provided with some sort of mechanism through which to challenge whether continued deprivation is justifiable.' But Indiana’s forfeiture laws ban replevin and do not allow any other 'opportunity for interim relief'....
"'Allowing for the seizure and retention of vehicles,' she wrote, 'without providing an opportunity for an individual to challenge the pre-forfeiture deprivation [is] unconstitutional.'"
Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/08/31/federal-judges-rules-indiana-seizing-cars-with-civil-forfeiture-is-unconstitutional/#4b4cfc723da5
'via Blog this'
August 31, 2017 - "In a major win for private property rights, a federal judge ruled that Indiana can no longer seize vehicles under its controversial civil forfeiture laws, which allow police to confiscate property without filing criminal charges. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled that Indiana's laws were unconstitutional because they failed to provide a timely hearing for the property owner to contest the seizure.
"The decision comes just days after Hoosier lawmakers held a summer study committee to discuss forfeiture reform, and less than a month after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new policy to expand police seizures nationwide.
"The case began last September when an officer with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department pulled over Leroy Washington and found a small amount of cannabis. Police charged Washington with dealing marijuana and seized his car.... Washington ... filed a federal class-action lawsuit last November on behalf of other owners whose cars were held by law enforcement in Indianapolis. Between November 2016 and February 2017, those agencies seized at least 169 vehicles, or 11 cars per week on average.
"The lawsuit claimed that Indiana’s forfeiture laws violated the car owners’ right to due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Indiana, once property is seized, law enforcement can take up to 180 days to file a forfeiture complaint [and] the property owner cannot challenge the seizure during that months-long hold period. That is because, under state law, seized property is 'not subject to replevin,' a process that would allow the owners to regain wrongfully taken property while awaiting trial....
"As Judge Magnus-Stinson noted, losing one’s car for months on end 'could cause significant hardship'.... In order to prevent 'erroneous deprivation' and to safeguard due process, property owners must be 'provided with some sort of mechanism through which to challenge whether continued deprivation is justifiable.' But Indiana’s forfeiture laws ban replevin and do not allow any other 'opportunity for interim relief'....
"'Allowing for the seizure and retention of vehicles,' she wrote, 'without providing an opportunity for an individual to challenge the pre-forfeiture deprivation [is] unconstitutional.'"
Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/08/31/federal-judges-rules-indiana-seizing-cars-with-civil-forfeiture-is-unconstitutional/#4b4cfc723da5
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment