From Scott Bullock, Institute for Justice <[email protected]>
Subject Double victory: IJ conquers an unjust forfeiture scheme and abusive rental inspections
Date September 1, 2023 2:31 PM
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
Dear John:

Yesterday, we scored a resounding twofer for property rights: We upended a notorious forfeiture scheme in Wayne County, Michigan, and we put an end to an intrusive rental inspection law in Orange City, Iowa.

First, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit dealt a major blow to Wayne County's unconstitutional "seize-and-ransom" vehicle forfeiture scheme. As you may recall, Wayne County routinely seizes cars on flimsy pretexts and holds them for months without the owner being able to contest the seizure before a judge. The only way to get one’s car back before then is to pay around $1,000 or more—a huge burden for IJ’s working-class clients and other victims, who depend on their cars for their livelihood.

The court ruled that those who lose their cars to the County’s forfeiture scheme are entitled to a prompt post-seizure hearing before a judge within two weeks. The judges also had some choice words for the county. After recounting the story of IJ client Robert Reeves—whose car was wrongly forfeited and held for ransom by Wayne County—Judge Amul Thapar asked in a concurrence: “Does this sound like a legitimate way of cleaning up Wayne County? Or does it sound like a money-making scheme that preys on those least able to fight it? To ask the question is to answer it.”

The court's ruling sends a clear message to Wayne County and government agencies across America that they cannot use civil forfeiture to raise revenue on the backs of some of their poorest citizens.

Meanwhile, in a major victory for the property and privacy rights of tenants and landlords, a state court in Iowa ruled that Orange City’s mandatory rental inspection law violates the Iowa Constitution. The law allowed government officials to enter tenants’ homes without a warrant, even if both the tenant and landlord did not consent. Furthermore, the court ruled that the city cannot get a warrant without “some plausible basis for believing that a violation is likely to be found.” This victory underscores that your home, however modest, is a castle and entitled to protection, whether you rent or own.

With these twin triumphs, IJ has not only vindicated the rights of the individuals directly impacted by these abusive schemes but has also set lasting precedent for other courts to follow.

I thought you would appreciate knowing about these two big wins as we all head into the holiday weekend. Please consider making a donation to bring even more victories in the fall and the remainder of the year. ([link removed] )

Scott

Scott G. Bullock

President and Chief Counsel

Institute for Justice

Donate Today ([link removed] )

Institute for Justice, 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900, Arlington, Virginia 22203

Manage preferences ([link removed] )
Screenshot of the email generated on import

Message Analysis