Alvarez v. Smith

Media Items
Advocates
Paul Castiglione (argued the cause for the petitioner)
William M. Jay (Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States as amicus curiae)
Thomas Peters (argued the cause for the respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
08-351
Petitioner: 
Anita Alvarez, Cook County State's Attorney
Respondent: 
Chermane Smith, et al.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Alvarez v. Smith U.S. ___
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_351)
Facts of the Case: 

The Chicago Police Department seized property belonging to the plaintiffs, using the power granted it by the Illinois Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA). The plaintiffs filed suit in an Illinois federal district court under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 arguing that when property is seized under the DAFPA, due process requires a prompt, postseizure, probable cause hearing. The district court dismissed, but the plaintiffs asked for a rehearing in light of Mathews v. Eldridge, which prohibited the seizure of real property without a prior hearing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted review.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the DAFPA did not provide adequate due process for an owner to contest the seizure of his property, reasoning the length of time between seizure and contest was too long (a maximum of 97 to 187 days). The court remanded the case and instructed the district court to devise a mechanism by which an owner can contest the validity of the retention of his property.

Question: 

In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a postseizure, probable cause hearing, prior to a forfeiture of property, should the district court apply the test employed in United States v. $8,850 or that in Mathews v. Eldridge?