Culley v. Marshall (601 U.S. 377)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 9, 2024 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 601 U.S. 377 · 144 S. Ct. 1142
- Decided
- May 9, 2024
- Term
- October Term 2023
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Kavanaugh
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 , 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CULLEY ET AL. v. MARSHALL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 22–585. Argued October 30, 2023—Decided May 9, 2024 Petitioner Halima Culley loaned her car to her son, who was later pulled over by Alabama police officers and arrested for possession of marijuana. Petitioner Lena Sutton loaned her car to a friend, who was stopped by Alabama police and arrested for trafficking methamphetamine. In both cases, petitioners’ cars were seized under an Alabama civil forfeiture law that permitted seizure of a car “inci- dent to an arrest” so long as the State then “promptly” initiated a for- feiture case. Ala. Code §20–2–93(b)(1), (c). The State of Alabama filed forfeiture complaints against Culley’s and Sutton’s cars just 10 and 13 days, respectively, after their seizure. While their forfeiture proceed- ings were pending, Culley and Sutton each filed purported…
Excerpt of a 81,613-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.