Wednesday
Oct142009
Supreme Court May Punt On Property Forfeiture Case
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 5:27PM
By Laura Smith
The Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case on forfeiture, weighing the constitutionality of an Illinois law that allows the confiscation of property associated with drug crimes.
Paul Castiglione argued for the state of Illinois, saying that three Chicago residents’ cars were confiscated by Chicago police pursuant to the Illinois Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA). The people weren’t charged with crimes and had to wait more than a year without a hearing and without a chance to get their cars back. He said their cars had eventually been returned.
The Justices started the arguments by asking whether the plaintiffs cars had been returned, however, since if the plaintiffs no longer had claims against the state the case would be rendered moot. “This case is not moot because subsequent to the Seventh Circuit decision in this case, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification, specifically asking for damages and restitution, in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief,” Castiglione said. He argued that these additional requests, beyond simply wanting their cars back, mean that there is an ongoing case for the court to consider.
Thomas Peters, attorney for the Chicago residents argued that the case was not class action, but that it was still a class of people in Chicago He said that they had initially filed a request to make the case a class-action suit, but the district court denied that request. Peters said they did not appeal that decision because it was made at the time that the district court also rejected their arguments about the forfeiture law.
Justices Breyer and Alito did not seem concerned with the mootness question, however. Justice Breyer several times suggested that it was unfair for an innocent bystander whose car was used in a crime, and who may depend on his car for his livelihood, might not be able to challenge the seizure of the car for an extended period of time. Justice Alito, on the other hand, seemed worried about the burden placed on police if they had to justify seizures within a short time; such a hearing might require that police disclose ongoing criminal investigations, such as wiretapping of the actual owner of the car.
Justice Stevens appeared to want the case dismissed on the basis of mootness, noting the difficulties examining the facts of the plaintiff’s seizures when the plaintiffs had already gotten their cars back. “We are trying to get into the case much earlier than we should, it seems to me,” Stevens said.
The case, Alvarez v. Smith, will likely be decided later this year.
The Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case on forfeiture, weighing the constitutionality of an Illinois law that allows the confiscation of property associated with drug crimes.
Paul Castiglione argued for the state of Illinois, saying that three Chicago residents’ cars were confiscated by Chicago police pursuant to the Illinois Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA). The people weren’t charged with crimes and had to wait more than a year without a hearing and without a chance to get their cars back. He said their cars had eventually been returned.
The Justices started the arguments by asking whether the plaintiffs cars had been returned, however, since if the plaintiffs no longer had claims against the state the case would be rendered moot. “This case is not moot because subsequent to the Seventh Circuit decision in this case, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification, specifically asking for damages and restitution, in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief,” Castiglione said. He argued that these additional requests, beyond simply wanting their cars back, mean that there is an ongoing case for the court to consider.
Thomas Peters, attorney for the Chicago residents argued that the case was not class action, but that it was still a class of people in Chicago He said that they had initially filed a request to make the case a class-action suit, but the district court denied that request. Peters said they did not appeal that decision because it was made at the time that the district court also rejected their arguments about the forfeiture law.
Justices Breyer and Alito did not seem concerned with the mootness question, however. Justice Breyer several times suggested that it was unfair for an innocent bystander whose car was used in a crime, and who may depend on his car for his livelihood, might not be able to challenge the seizure of the car for an extended period of time. Justice Alito, on the other hand, seemed worried about the burden placed on police if they had to justify seizures within a short time; such a hearing might require that police disclose ongoing criminal investigations, such as wiretapping of the actual owner of the car.
Justice Stevens appeared to want the case dismissed on the basis of mootness, noting the difficulties examining the facts of the plaintiff’s seizures when the plaintiffs had already gotten their cars back. “We are trying to get into the case much earlier than we should, it seems to me,” Stevens said.
The case, Alvarez v. Smith, will likely be decided later this year.
Reader Comments