Court: OK For Wayne County, Michigan, to seize man's car for 3 years

[mahatmakanejeeves]

25thHat Retweeted

Alright SCOTUS, fix this shit.

https://www.watchdog.org/michigan/court-ok-for-wayne-county-to-seize-man-s-car/article_fcede0fe-2ee4-11e9-837d-37fdffb59133.html …

Link to tweet

Court: OK For Wayne County to seize man’s car for 3 years
By Tyler Arnold | Watchdog.org 2 hrs ago

Stephen Nichols was driving an uninsured vehicle when he was pulled over July 2, 2015, by the Lincoln Park Police Department. His car was impounded because he had fake proof of insurance. ... But according to court documents, Wayne County never filed the paperwork required to take ownership of his car. Even though Nichols paid a bond to challenge the property forfeiture, Wayne County held the car for more than three years, returning it only after he filed a lawsuit. ... A recent court decision upheld Wayne County’s actions.

Police officers can seize a vehicle or other assets and then hold them for months or longer without a court hearing on taking ownership. This can happen even if there is no charge or arrest, as described in the ruling of a U.S. district court judge. ... The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan cited precedents set by other courts, including a U.S. Supreme Court case about civil asset forfeiture law. Opponents of these laws say that taking property should require a more rigorous burden of proof than the current “clear and convincing” standard.

The Legislature has recently debated but not enacted bills to move in this direction by requiring a conviction before a person’s property can be forfeited. In Michigan, up to 100 percent of civil asset forfeiture proceeds are given to the law enforcement agency that made the seizure, which critics say is a financial incentive for police to seize and then try to keep property. ... Nichols filed a lawsuit against the county for failing to provide him a prompt hearing after officers seized his vehicle during a stop in which he was ticketed for driving without insurance.

But Judge Robert H. Cleland rejected his claim. “The Supreme Court of the United States has not found the Due Process Clause to require a post-deprivation, pre-forfeiture hearing, and neither does this court,” the district court opinion said. In other words, after taking his car, the police had no duty to call for a hearing under any timetable. ... The vehicle was seized under Michigan’s Identity Theft Protection Act, and Nichols eventually pleaded guilty to not having proper insurance. But his vehicle was held by Wayne County for three years before it eventually gave it back after Nichols filed the lawsuit.

After his car was seized, Nichols filed a claim of interest for the vehicle and posted a 10 percent bond, as required by the county, but he did not receive an immediate hearing. In response, Nichols filed a lawsuit against the county, arguing that his 14th Amendment right to due process had been violated. After he filed the lawsuit, the county returned his vehicle, but Nichols continued to press the case on constitutional grounds.
....