Sotomayor and Civil Forfeiture
After following the Sotomayor soap opera that was the Senate Judiciary hearings last week, I came across an interesting document published by The Alliance for Justice that can be found here. That report details many aspects of Sotomayor's criminal justice record, including her tendencies to rule in favor of the government on 4th and 5th Amendment issues, her affinity for finding harmless error, and her willingness to entertain challenges to government forfeiture. Below are some tidbits from the document relating to her rulings in civil forfeiture cases.
Her rulings for claimants and for the government are well-balanced and highlight her strict adherence to analyzing claims on a case-by-case basis. For example, in Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied 539 U.S. 969 (2003), Sotomayor held that New York's vehicle forfeiture process violated the Constitution. She argued that since a vehicle is intimately connected to a person's livelihood, the forfeiture process must include a prompt neutral fact-finder to satisfy a claimants due process rights. Because it did not, the process was unconstitutional.
She has also shown a willingness to hold the government's feet to the fire when meeting their burdens at forfeiture proceedings. She has ruled in favor of claimants when the government has failed to prove a sufficient nexus between proceeds and illegal activity. United States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2007). Additionally, she has been reluctant to give the benefit of the doubt to the government when questions of fact remain as to the source of forfeited funds. United States v. 9,380 in US Currency, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 22958 (2d Cir. Sept. 16, 1999).
However, on many occasions Sotomayor has ruled in favor of the government, illustrating her to be a judge who looks very closely at the facts. In United States v. $557, 933.89 More or less in U.S. Funds, 287 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2002), Sotomayor upheld the administrative forfeiture of money orders at an airport, and found that the claimant's 4th Amendment rights were not violated despite the lack of a warrant.
Overall, Sotomayor has far more practical criminal experience than any of the current Justices. This experience combined with her reputation as being a judge with strict adherence to precedent and procedure should make for well-reasoned, real-world decisions. Finally, because Sotomayor puts such emphasis on the facts and context of the cases she hears, both claimants and law enforcement should be ready to recall all relevant facts (whether helpful or harmful) in order to succeed in proceedings before her.
Her rulings for claimants and for the government are well-balanced and highlight her strict adherence to analyzing claims on a case-by-case basis. For example, in Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied 539 U.S. 969 (2003), Sotomayor held that New York's vehicle forfeiture process violated the Constitution. She argued that since a vehicle is intimately connected to a person's livelihood, the forfeiture process must include a prompt neutral fact-finder to satisfy a claimants due process rights. Because it did not, the process was unconstitutional.
She has also shown a willingness to hold the government's feet to the fire when meeting their burdens at forfeiture proceedings. She has ruled in favor of claimants when the government has failed to prove a sufficient nexus between proceeds and illegal activity. United States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2007). Additionally, she has been reluctant to give the benefit of the doubt to the government when questions of fact remain as to the source of forfeited funds. United States v. 9,380 in US Currency, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 22958 (2d Cir. Sept. 16, 1999).
However, on many occasions Sotomayor has ruled in favor of the government, illustrating her to be a judge who looks very closely at the facts. In United States v. $557, 933.89 More or less in U.S. Funds, 287 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2002), Sotomayor upheld the administrative forfeiture of money orders at an airport, and found that the claimant's 4th Amendment rights were not violated despite the lack of a warrant.
Overall, Sotomayor has far more practical criminal experience than any of the current Justices. This experience combined with her reputation as being a judge with strict adherence to precedent and procedure should make for well-reasoned, real-world decisions. Finally, because Sotomayor puts such emphasis on the facts and context of the cases she hears, both claimants and law enforcement should be ready to recall all relevant facts (whether helpful or harmful) in order to succeed in proceedings before her.
Comments