The Supreme Court: "Something's Rotten in the State of Illinois"

On December 8, 2009, the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Illinois Court of Appeals and further instructed the same court to dismiss the case of Alvarez v. Smith on the grounds that it was moot. The State of Illinois’ Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA) allows a law enforcement officer to seize- without a warrant- any property that he has probable cause to believe was used to facilitate a drug crime.

Six Plaintiffs arrested under DAFPA claim that the lack of a "speedy post-seizure hearing" to return the items, vehicles and money, was a direct violation of the Due Process Clause. Yet when the case came before the Supreme Court, three owners had their vehicle in their possession; two forfeited the money and one individual, requesting only a portion, left the rest with the State. Since all six had come to an agreement with the State, the Supreme Court had neither a legal case nor a controversy to decide. The Supreme Court, however, already granted certiorari to review the question regarding Due Process.

The State of Illinois returned the vehicles between 11 and 40 months after seizure and in the case on the money after 14 months. Something is rotten in the State of Illinois! After an officer seizes property, he must contact the Law Enforcement Agency who then contacts the State Attorney to begin the process of Judicial Forfeiture Review. The bureaucratic process spans about 5 months and in the finality favors the State as the individuals have legally forfeited their property.

Though the individuals in this case were fortunate to have their property returned, what about the countless others who are not as lucky? Law Enforcement Agencies can seize property with nothing more than probable cause, but what sort of precedent is this? Though the Supreme Court can only interpret law, law makers should create legislation to forbid this unconscionable practice of using loopholes to unfairly withhold property.