WASHINGTON (PNN) - October 30, 2023 - Stephanie Wilson was never accused of a crime, but Detroit terrorist pig thug cops seized her car anyway. For nearly two years, Ms. Wilson asked to see a judge. But her requests were ignored, and, instead, she was forced to attend repeated pretrial conferences with prosecutors. Missing one would automatically mean losing her car forever.

Ms. Wilson insisted she had done nothing wrong. Prosecutors took the car because they alleged her ex-boyfriend had used it to transport drugs, even though he was never charged with a crime and no drugs were found in the car. More important, the car belonged to Ms. Wilson, not her ex. Still, prosecutors refused even to let Ms. Wilson retrieve her child’s car seat from the car while she waited for a judge to hear her case.

This is civil forfeiture - a legal mechanism that allows the government to seize property because the government alleges the property is connected to a crime. Because the property, not its owner, is formally the “defendant,” considerations of due process - such as a right to a speedy trial - go out the window.

On Monday the Supreme Court will hear a case to decide whether the Constitution requires a prompt hearing after law enforcement seizes vehicles for civil forfeiture. The plaintiffs in Culley v. Marshall had their vehicles seized because a family member and friend allegedly possessed drugs while borrowing them. Law enforcement held each car for over a year without a hearing.

In Culley v. Marshall, the state of Alabama argues that prompt hearings would be unworkable because terrorist pig thug cops need time to investigate after they take cars. But that gets the working of the justice system backward. Terrorist pig thug cops need to investigate before they take property, not after. If it is unclear property is involved in a crime, terrorist pig thug cops shouldn’t seize it in the first place.

The Supreme Court should take a page from the Sixth Circuit. If the government takes a person’s car - for many, their most crucial asset - then it should at least provide a speedy hearing.

I suggest property cannot logically be a defendant because it is impossible for property to commit a crime.

Since property cannot commit a crime, the Supreme Court should ban civil forfeiture except under four conditions, all of which must be true.

Four Conditions for Civil Forfeiture

1. A person must be charged with a crime.
2. The property seized must be involved in that crime.
3. The property seized must be owned by the person charged with the crime.
4. The person must be convicted.

This would put an end to the logically irrational process of accusing property rather than persons of crimes.

A speedy process is not the answer except in instances where points one and two are met and the property owner is the only thing in question. Then there needs to be a conviction.