Civil forfeiture defendants in Indiana are entitled to a jury trial, with the state Supreme Court ruling unanimously ruled last week, strengthening basic due process protections for those whose assets have been seized by law enforcement.
Before the court was the case against Alucious Kizer, from whom police seized $2,435 in cash after a traffic stop in which drugs were found in his car. Civil forfeiture allows law enforcement agencies to seize people’s assets if the government suspects them of criminal activity. Kizer attempted to challenge his forfeiture at trial, which the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected, ruling that such defendants “are not entitled to a jury trial.”
“The State maintains that Kizer is not entitled to a jury trial because civil forfeitures under Indiana drug forfeiture law are a special statutory proceeding intended solely for trial in court,” Judge Christopher M concluded. Goff of the Indiana Supreme Court in an opinion. published on October 31. “Kizer disagrees, arguing that the state’s theory would effectively deprive Hoosiers of a jury trial when filing a lawsuit under a modern legal system.”
The state’s highest court ruled in Kizer’s favor. “The historical record – consisting of statutes and court decisions that reflect contemporary practice – strongly suggests that Indiana continued the common law tradition of jury trials in property forfeiture lawsuits,” Goff wrote. The seizure of assets suspected of being used in the commission of a crime, he added, is “essentially a legal action that gives rise to the right to a jury trial.”
That prosecutors in Indiana successfully denied civil forfeiture defendants this due process, and almost succeeded in making it official in court, reflects how abusive this practice can be. It’s also not surprising and shows how US governments can deter suspects from challenging such seizures, even if those people have not been charged with a crime.
On October 30, the day before the Indiana Supreme Court announced its decision regarding Kizer’s appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court convened to consider a similar problem. Before the judges did Culley vs. Marshall, a case involving two women whose cars were seized by police in Alabama. Police taken possession from Halima Culley’s vehicle after pulling over her son and arresting him for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia; Police seized Lena Sutton’s car after her friend, who had borrowed her car, was stopped and taken into custody for possession of methamphetamine.
Neither woman was in the car at the time and neither was suspected of a crime. That didn’t matter. A lot of time would pass before things would improve for them: although both Culley and Sutton eventually got their vehicles back, it took 20 months and 14 months respectively for the courts to rule in their favor, as neither was given a hearing soon after the seizure. The lack of due process is a characteristic, and not a bug, of civil forfeiture because it prevents many defendants from continuing to fight for their property. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether depriving suspects of a hearing in a timely manner violates the Constitution.
As for Kizer, he will finally get a jury trial to determine whether the $2,435 in cash recovered during his arrest should be forfeited or returned to him.
“The right to a jury trial of our peers is the core of our legal system.” said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, said in a statement after the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision was released. “For centuries, courts across the country have affirmed the obvious: When the government files a lawsuit to forfeit your property, you have the right to present your case to a jury.”