Are Property Owners of Assets Seized by Law Enforcement Entitled to a "Prompt" Hearing to Recover Custody, Governed by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, or Are They Entitled to a "Timely" Hearing, as Governed by the Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Guarantee?

Halima Culley lent her car to her son; Lena Sutton lent her car to a friend. Both borrowers were arrested for drugs while driving, and police seized the cars as “instrumentalities of crime.” The relevant state seizure statute contains an exception for innocent vehicle owners but offers no expedited hearing for owners to prove their innocence. The cities held both cars for over a year before Culley and Sutton proved their innocence in summary judgment proceedings. Culley and Sutton each filed class-action lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the cities’ failure to provide a prompt postdeprivation hearing violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The Supreme Court will decide whether the need for a postdeprivation hearing is analyzed using the test used to determine violation of the Sixth Amendment’s “speedy trial” guarantee (Barker v. Wingo) or the test used to determine deprivation of property without due process (Mathews v. Eldridge). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]