•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Civil asset forfeiture is commonplace in America, with ultimately billions of dollars seized by law enforcement annually. In Alabama, two distinct “innocent owners” challenged the constitutionality of the state’s civil asset forfeiture statutory scheme when their respective vehicles were seized. As the cases made their way through the federal courts, they were consolidated on appeal and ultimately brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. The consolidated case, Culley v. Marshall, specifically raised the narrow question of whether due process required a civil asset forfeiture action to hold a preliminary hearing at the threshold of the matter, akin to criminal proceedings. This preliminary hearing would help determine the legitimacy of the seizure and provide third parties the opportunity to raise the “innocent owner” defense to the forfeiture. The Court in Culley found that controlling precedent already answered the question. In short, while a timely hearing was required under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, another hearing—whether it be preliminary, remission, or otherwise—was not. The dissent, unpersuaded by precedent and concerned by the publicized abuses involving the practice, would have simply ruled on which due process test controlled and remanded it back to the lower courts.

Looking at the case from a biblical worldview warrants analysis on two levels. First, it must be determined whether the practice of civil asset forfeiture, generally, comports with a biblical worldview. Second, and more specifically, it must be determined whether a civil asset forfeiture action that lacks a preliminary hearing violates a biblical worldview. Looking through the Blackstonian lens of the Law of Nature and Nature’s God, one finds ample support for the practice as a legitimate exercise of governmental power. In conducting a biblical worldview analysis, it must be determined (1) whether jurisdiction has been given to the civil magistrate to carry out the practice; and (2) whether the American constitutional system (specifically federalism and separation of powers) permits the government’s action. First, as to civil asset forfeiture generally, both questions are answered in the affirmative. Second, as to a civil asset forfeiture action that lacks a preliminary hearing, while the Law of Nature and Nature’s God does not compel such a hearing, biblical principles counsel in favor of providing the additional procedural safeguard.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS