Constitutional Law
Forfeiture; due process

When property is seized under a drug forfeiture law, due process requires that the owner be given a prompt, postseizure, probable cause hearing.

"The private interest involved, particularly in the seizure of an automobile, is great. Our society is, for good or not, highly dependent on the automobile. The hardship posed by the loss of one's means of transportation, even in a city like Chicago, with a well-developed mass transportation system, is hard to calculate. It can result in missed doctor's appointments, missed school, and perhaps most significant of all, loss of employment. This is bad enough for an owner of an automobile, who is herself accused of a crime giving rise to the seizure. But consider the owner of an automobile which is seized because the driver-not the owner-is the one accused and whose actions cause the seizure.

The innocent owner can be without his car for months or years without a means to contest the seizure or even to post a bond to obtain its release. It is hard to see any reason why an automobile, not needed as evidence, should not be released with a bond or an order forbidding its disposal. The person from whom cash is seized also has a strong interest in a hearing, though obviously the posting of a cash bond for cash is an absurdity."

Reversed and Remanded.

07-1599 Smith v. City of Chicago

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Bucklo, J., Evans, J.

Full Text