On May 9, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Culley v. Marshall. The principal issue related to N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 was whether a preliminary retention hearing was required when the police seize property in furtherance of a civil forfeiture case.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority in relevant part: Petitioner Halima Culley loaned her car to her son, who was later pulled over by Alabama police officers and arrested for possession of marijuana. Petitioner Lena Sutton loaned her car to a friend, who was stopped by Alabama police and arrested for trafficking methamphetamine. In both cases, petitioners’ cars were seized under an Alabama civil forfeiture law that permitted seizure of a car “incident to an arrest” so long as the State then “promptly” initiated a forfeiture case. Ala. Code §20–2–93(b)(1), (c). The State of Alabama filed forfeiture complaints against Culley’s and Sutton’s cars just 10 and 13 days, respectively, after their seizure. While their forfeiture proceedings were pending, Culley and Sutton each filed purported class-action complaints in federal court seeking money damages under 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that state officials violated their due process rights by retaining their cars during the forfeiture process without holding preliminary hearings. In a consolidated appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of petitioners’ claims, holding that a timely forfeiture hearing affords claimants due process and that no separate preliminary hearing is constitutionally required.
In civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing. Due process ordinarily requires States to provide notice and a hearing before seizing real property. But States may immediately seize personal property subject to civil forfeiture when the property (for example, a car) otherwise could be removed, destroyed, or concealed before a forfeiture hearing. When a State seizes personal property, due process requires a timely post-seizure forfeiture hearing.
In New Jersey, the right to a “timely” forfeiture hearing is undermined by practical considerations. One such consideration is that any statements made by the criminal defendant as part of the civil forfeiture proceeding can be used against them in the criminal case. Thus, forfeiture proceedings are usually stayed until the criminal case is resolved. The property subject to forfeiture remains in law enforcement’s possession while the case is stayed.
