This is gives highway robbery a new meaning.

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: July 20, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------


** SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Asset Forfeiture Scheme Where Police Seize and Keep Cars, Cash & Homes of Innocent Owners
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal challenging a modern-day form of highway robbery ([link removed]) which empowers police to seize and keep private property (cash, jewelry, cars, homes, and other valuables) they “suspect” may be connected to a crime.

In Culley v. Marshall, The Rutherford Institute, ACLU, and Cato Institute joined in an amicus brief ([link removed]) to argue against the government’s use of delaying tactics in asset forfeiture proceedings which make it difficult for individuals innocent of any wrongdoing to timely recover their property—especially cars and cash—seized by police who stand to profit from the forfeiture.

“Asset forfeiture is the government’s new, twisted form of guilt by association. Only it’s not the citizenry being accused of wrongdoing, just their money,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “What this adds up to is a paradigm in which Americans no longer have to be guilty to be stripped of their property, rights and liberties. All you have to be is in possession of something the government wants.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

Civil asset forfeiture is a practice where government agents (usually the police) seize private property they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity, then whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure. Relying on the topsy-turvy legal theory that one’s property can not only be guilty of a crime but is guilty until proven innocent, government agencies have eagerly cashed in on this revenue scheme, often under the pretext of the War on Drugs. By asserting that someone’s property, a building or a large of amount of cash for example, is tied to an illegal activity, the government—usually, the police—then confiscates the property for its own uses, and it’s up to the property owner to jump through a series of legal hoops to prove that the property was not connected to criminal activity or that the owner had no involvement or knowledge of the criminal
activity. But challenging these “takings” in court can cost the owner more than the value of the confiscated property itself.

Many of these asset forfeiture cases involve no criminal charge against the property owner. For example, in February 2019, Alabama police seized vehicles belonging to Halima Culley and Lena Sutton while the cars were being used by other individuals accused of drug possession. Although Culley and Sutton were themselves innocent of any wrongdoing, the state seized their vehicles and filed civil asset forfeiture actions to take ownership. While the courts finally found Culley and Sutton innocent and entitled to the return of their vehicles, they were deprived of the use of their vehicles for 20 months and 12 months respectively. In filing suit against the state, Culley and Sutton claimed a violation of their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because they were not provided with a prompt hearing for the opportunity to keep possession of their vehicles pending trial. Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuits. In filing an amicus brief
([link removed]) with the Supreme Court in Culley v. Marshall, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that the government’s practice of delaying forfeiture hearings for over a year violates due process rights and leverages severe hardships against innocent owners, often forcing them to give up and settle with the government so they can recover some of their property.

Abram J. Pafford, Francis J. Aul, and Timothy J. Whittle of McGuireWoods LLP advanced the arguments in the cert petition ([link removed]) and merits ([link removed]) amicus briefs for Culley v. Marshall.

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org ([link removed]) .

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fpolice-seize-and-keep-cars-cash-homes-even-when-owners-are-not-charged-with-a-crime-gewybqutvr Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fpolice-seize-and-keep-cars-cash-homes-even-when-owners-are-not-charged-with-a-crime-gewybqutvr)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2023 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])