Sixth Circuit Finds Wayne County’s Forfeiture Program Unconstitutional

Wayne County’s’ vehicle forfeiture program was held unconstitutional. Wayne County must hold a probable cause hearing within two weeks from seizure of vehicle. See Ingram v. Wayne County, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23095 *; __ F.4th __ (Sixth Circuit 2023). Wayne County’s vehicle forfeiture program was held unconstitutional as Wayne County had a practice of seizing and holding vehicles for several months before deciding to initiate forfeiture proceedings. Sixth Circuit held that Wayne County failed to provide an opportunity to be heard about the detention of their vehicles violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Wayne County seizes vehicles simply because of the vehicle’s location in an area generally associated with crime. Regardless of the owner’s innocence, Wayne County impounds the vehicles and its contents until the owner pays a redemption fee. This fee is $900 for the first seizure, $1,800 for the second, and $2,700 for the third, not including other fees for towing and storage. If the owner is unwilling or unable to pay the redemption fee, the only alternatives are either to abandon the vehicle or to wait for county prosecutors to decide whether to initiate civil forfeiture proceedings.” Wayne County argued that its forfeiture procedures complied with due process. The court rejected Wayne County’s argument and held that Wayne County was required to provide a prompt post-seizure hearing for plaintiffs’ personal vehicles.

The Sixth Circuit discussed what constituted a “timely hearing” prior to final disposition of the forfeiture proceeding. “As such, requiring a post-seizure hearing within a short time frame may be justified because a personal vehicle used for transportation is almost as precious as a home. As the Seventh Circuit has described, “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.”

“We also hesitate to announce a timeframe, but we are well aware of the important property and liberty interests at stake in a case where people are being deprived of their only vehicle used for transportation. Wayne County’s practices drove Ingram into bankruptcy, and they brought hardship on all three plaintiffs. We follow the Supreme Court’s lead in County of Riverside in remarking that a timeframe is important for predictability. Indeed, if Wayne County provides plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard, it will be faced with answering the very same question—how quickly it must provide a hearing to avoid liability under procedural due process. While that question is fact-dependent, where a person is to be deprived of something so integral and important as here—a vehicle integral to personal transportation and liberty—then a prompt opportunity to be heard to challenge the holding of the vehicle is required.”

“If a probable-cause hearing can be heard within 48 hours, and other circuits have found one to three weeks to be excessive in this sort of context, then, taking the factual setting of this case into account, we hold two weeks from the date of the vehicle’s seizure to be an appropriate time frame to provide the vehicle owner an opportunity to be heard to contest the holding of a vehicle vital to the owner’s transportation and livelihood.”

And “…a post-deprivation hearing for vehicle seizure requires law enforcement to first identify then notify all the relevant parties. Notification includes not merely the vehicle’s driver at the time of seizure, but also the registered owner and the titled owner, who may not be the same people.”