Another shameful decision on the issue by the Supreme Court. The argument about not requiring a separate preliminary hearing is a cop out, since the "timely forfeiture hearing" took almost 2 years for one of the victims.


Supreme Court Rules No Due Process Right to Preliminary Hearings in Civil Asset Forfeiture Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the due process rights of two Alabama women were not violated when they both had to wait over a year for a court hearing to challenge the police seizure of their cars.

In a 6–3 decision, the Court's conservative majority held in the case Culley v. Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama that property owners in civil asset forfeiture proceedings have no due process right to a preliminary court hearing to determine if police had probable cause to seize their property.

"When police seize and then seek civil forfeiture of a car that was used to commit a drug offense, the Constitution requires a timely forfeiture hearing," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. "The question here is whether the Constitution also requires a separate preliminary hearing to determine whether the police may retain the car pending the forfeiture hearing. This Court's precedents establish that the answer is no: The Constitution requires a timely forfeiture hearing; the Constitution does not also require a separate preliminary hearing."

Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner is never charged or convicted of a crime. Law enforcement groups say it is a vital tool to disrupt drug trafficking and other organized crime.

Those criticisms have been echoed in the past by not just the Supreme Court's liberal justices but also Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, giving forfeiture critics hope that a skeptical majority on the Court would clamp down on civil forfeiture.

However, despite writing in a concurrence that "this case leaves many larger questions unresolved about whether, and to what extent, contemporary civil forfeiture practices can be squared with the Constitution's promise of due process," Gorsuch, joined by Thomas, both agreed with the majority opinion.


https://reason.com/2024/05/09/supreme-court-rules-no-due-process-right-to-preliminary-hearings-in-civil-asset-forfeiture-cases/

Once again, Trumpy's request for a mistrial is denied.  After Stormy basically made the defense look incompetent, it is no surprise.

The most hilarious part was Trumpy walking out of the courtroom whining "I'm innocent."

He denies having an affair with Stormy (and Karen).  I totally believe him.  It is makes perfect sense to pay two women $130K and $150K to NOT have sex with him.  And then have them sign a NDA that says they won't lie about the affair they never had.  It makes perfect sense.