Krimstock hearing

Last updated
A sample of the required "Vehicle Seizure" form giving notice to vehicle owners of their right to a prompt Krimstock hearing. Vehicle Seizure Form.png
A sample of the required "Vehicle Seizure" form giving notice to vehicle owners of their right to a prompt Krimstock hearing.

A Krimstock hearing is an administrative law proceeding that offers vehicle owners the opportunity to recover possession of a vehicle confiscated by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) during an arrest. [1] [2] Police have authority to impound vehicles used as an instrument of a crime, and later to seek permanent ownership of these vehicles in civil forfeiture actions. [1] Such forfeiture actions, like the Krimstock administrative hearings, are entirely separate from any criminal charges the vehicle owner may face stemming from his or her arrest. [1]

Contents

At the hearing, the NYPD must demonstrate (1) that it followed proper procedure in arresting the person and taking the vehicle, (2) that it is likely to win the civil forfeiture action, and (3) that returning the vehicle would cause a danger to the public. [3] If the NYPD fails to demonstrate one of these three things, the vehicle is returned to its owner pending the outcome of the separate civil forfeiture action. [3]

The Krimstock hearing process was ordered into creation by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a 2002 opinion authored by Judge Sonia Sotomayor (who later became a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court). [4] The hearings are remarkable because they are a recent example of an entirely new, judicially created, procedural due process right. [4] The hearings are conducted by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) and presided over by New York City administrative law judges. [1] In 2003, the New York State Court of Appeals mandated that similar hearings be conducted in Nassau County, Long Island. [5]

Origin

The NYPD began seizing vehicles upon the arrest of the driver in the 1980s pursuant to a city ordinance that allowed for such forfeiture when the vehicle was used as an instrument of a crime. [6] [7] [8] Vehicles were regularly confiscated from people charged with both misdemeanors and felonies, ranging from drug possession and solicitation of prostitution to illegal gun possession. [6] Unlike the older New York State civil forfeiture statute, the NYC law did not provide for any type of prompt due process hearing. [9] Vehicles were held for months and even years while owners waited for the NYPD to bring civil forfeiture actions. [10] The vast majority of the time, however, these forfeiture actions never came. In 1998, for example, of the 1,800 vehicles seized, less than one percent went to trial. [11] In 1999, the NYPD added driving while intoxicated (DWI) to the list of crimes that they would impound vehicles for, resulting in thousands of additional seizures. [12]

In 2000, the Special Litigation Unit of The Legal Aid Society brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of a number of vehicle owners who had been waiting years for the return of their vehicles. [4] One of those vehicle owners, a named plaintiff on behalf of the lawsuit's certified class, was Valerie Krimstock. Her name became part of the title of that lawsuit, Krimstock v. Kelly — hence the name "Krimstock hearings." [4] In 2002, the Second Circuit heard the case. The majority opinion was written by Sonia Sotomayor. [4]

Sotomayor wrote that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, vehicle owners have a right "to ask what ‘justification’ the NYPD has for retention of their vehicles during the pendency of proceedings, and to put that question to the NYPD at an early point after seizure in order to minimize any arbitrary or mistaken encroachment upon plaintiffs' use and possession of their property." [4]

The Second Circuit applied the three-part balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge. It reasoned that: (1) a significant private interest was affected considering the length of the retention and given that vehicles are "often central to a person's livelihood or daily activities"; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation was great considering that NYPD's pecuniary interest and the fact that no compensation was paid for the depreciation and replacement costs of vehicles erroneously held; and (3) the Government's interest in the vehicles not being sold or destroyed pending the forfeiture proceeding could be satisfied by "less drastic measures than continued impoundment," including bond or a restraining order. [4]

In consultation with the parties, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York chose OATH, a tribunal in the executive branch of NYC government, which adjudicates matters for a variety of NYC agencies, as the location for the new Krimstock hearings. [13] By 2004, when the hearing began, the NYPD held over 6,000 vehicles in "legal limbo." [14]

Through the continuing advocacy of The Legal Aid Society, the Krimstock hearing process has been refined and the original Krimstock order and judgment [13] has been twice amended by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. [2] [15]

The Krimstock process

Procedures for Krimstock-compliant hearings is outlined in the Third Amended Krimstock Order. [2] For seizures by police in New York City, procedure is further directed by New York City OATH Rules of Practice [16] and precedent from previous Krimstock decisions. The Center for New York City Law at New York Law School keeps an archive of OATH decisions, including Krimstock decisions. [17]

Return of a vehicle pursuant to a Krimstock hearing is temporary. Whether the vehicle is ultimately recovered or surrendered to police is determined at civil forfeiture proceedings in New York State Supreme Court. [18]

Beginning the Krimstock process

Upon seizing a vehicle, police must provide to the owner of the impounded vehicle a "Vehicle Seizure Form". [19] This form provides instructions for vehicle owners on how to request a Krimstock hearing. [19] (All vehicle owners are entitled to a hearing, but hearings are scheduled only when an owner requests one.) [19] Vehicle owners must attend the hearing. [20] Unlike criminal proceedings, asset forfeiture proceedings are a civil matter; accordingly, vehicle owners are not entitled to a state-appointed attorney. [21] Vehicle owners have the option of retaining a private attorney, but many represent themselvespro se. OATH attempts to provide assistance for pro se owners, including a detailed how-to website created in 2011 in conjunction with the Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic at Columbia University School of Law. [1] It also makes referrals to potential pro-bono representation. [21]

The settlement conference

At a Krimstock hearing, an administrative judges conducts an informal settlement conference between the government attorney and the vehicle owner. [22] Depending on the severity of the criminal charges, the police may offer to return the vehicle and cancel the civil forfeiture action subject to certain conditions. [22] If, for example, the vehicle owner was arrested for DWI and there are no aggravating factors, the NYPD may agree to return the vehicle if the owner completes a treatment program. [23] Or, as another example, if the vehicle owner was not in the vehicle at the time it was seized and did not know that it was being used for criminal activity, the NYPD may return the vehicle as long as the owner promises not to lend the vehicle to the arrested driver again. [24]

The hearing

The hearing is conducted in what looks like a standard court room. [25] Both the NYPD and the vehicle owner are entitled to call witnesses and present evidence. [25] Rules of evidence a Krimstock hearing are less strict than a criminal or civil trial. [26] Hearsay evidence, if deemed reliable, is admissible. [26] Accordingly, police may introduce the police report without having a police officer testify in person. [26] Vehicle owners are not required to testify, but administrative judges are allowed to draw a negative inference from an owner's silence. [25] Owners are free to decide to testify about some issues, but remain silent about others. [25]

The government's burden at the hearing

At the hearing, the burden is on government—the police—to show why the vehicle should remain impounded pending the outcome of the civil forfeiture action. [27]

The police must demonstrate that the vehicle owner was served proper notice of the Krimstock hearing. Drivers receive a Vehicle Seizure Form at the time of arrest. A second form is mailed to the vehicle owner within 5 days of the arrest. [27]

The NYPD must also convince the administrative law judge that it is more likely than not that:

  1. The NYPD had probable cause to stop the vehicle and arrest the person inside. If the NYPD claims contraband was found in the vehicle, the NYPD must show that there existed probable cause to search the vehicle as well.
  2. The vehicle was used as the instrumentality of a crime, and, accordingly, the NYPD has a likelihood of winning the civil forfeiture proceeding in state court and obtain permanent confiscation of the vehicle.
  3. Returning the vehicle would make the public less safe. [27]

National impact

In Alvarez v. Smith, the absence of Krimstock-like interim hearings under an Illinois forfeiture statute was challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States. [28] Upon learning that seized property had been returned, the Supreme Court determined that there was no longer a case or controversy to be ruled on and, accordingly, declined to set a national rule on when Krimstock-like interim hearings are required by due process. [28]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual, or the search and seizure of an individual's property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Police Department</span> Municipal police force of New York City

The New York City Police Department (NYPD), officially the City of New York Police Department, is the primary municipal law enforcement agency within the City of New York. Established on May 23, 1845, the NYPD is the largest, and one of the oldest, municipal police departments in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Search and seizure</span> Police power to confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to a crime

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

In rem jurisdiction is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Criminal Court</span> Court for misdemeanors, arraignments, and preliminary hearings

The Criminal Court of the City of New York is a court of the State Unified Court System in New York City that handles misdemeanors and lesser offenses, and also conducts arraignments and preliminary hearings in felony cases.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides those in Canada with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asset forfeiture</span> Confiscation of assets by the state

Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the authorities. In the United States, it is a type of criminal-justice financial obligation. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. This applies, but is not limited, to terrorist activities, drug-related crimes, and other criminal and even civil offenses. Some jurisdictions specifically use the term "confiscation" instead of forfeiture. The alleged purpose of asset forfeiture is to disrupt criminal activity by confiscating assets that potentially could have been beneficial to the individual or organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission</span> New York City government agency

The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission is an agency of the New York City government that licenses and regulates the medallion taxis and for-hire vehicle industries, including app-based companies such as Uber and Lyft. The TLC's regulatory landscape includes medallion (yellow) taxicabs, green or Boro taxicabs, black cars, community-based livery cars, commuter vans, paratransit vehicles (ambulettes), and some luxury limousines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers regarding both criminal procedure and civil matters. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, in regard to any "person". The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Sheriff's Office</span> New York Citys civil law enforcement agency

The New York City Sheriff's Office (NYCSO), officially the Office of the Sheriff of the City of New York, is the primary civil law enforcement agency for New York City. The Sheriff's Office is a division of the New York City Department of Finance, operating as an enforcement arm. The Sheriff's Office handles investigations concerning cigarette tax enforcement, real estate property/deed fraud and other matters deemed necessary by the Department of Finance.

Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964), is an in rem United States Supreme Court decision on First Amendment questions relating to the forfeiture of obscene material. By a 7–2 margin, the Court held that a seizure of the books was unconstitutional, since no hearing had been held on whether the books were obscene, and it reversed a Kansas Supreme Court decision that upheld the seizure.

Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision on seizure of property by the Chicago Police Department, however the case was declared moot by the Court as the parties agreed that there was no longer contention over the property seized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil forfeiture in the United States</span> Aspect of U.S. law enforcement

Civil forfeiture in the United States, also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture, is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from people who are suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing. While civil procedure, as opposed to criminal procedure, generally involves a dispute between two private citizens, civil forfeiture involves a dispute between law enforcement and property such as a pile of cash or a house or a boat, such that the thing is suspected of being involved in a crime. To get back the seized property, owners must prove it was not involved in criminal activity. Sometimes it can mean a threat to seize property as well as the act of seizure itself. Civil forfeiture is not considered to be an example of a criminal justice financial obligation.

The New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) is an administrative office of the New York City government. It is a non-mayoral executive agency and is not part of the state Unified Court System.

Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court dealt with the applicability of the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment to state and local governments in the context of asset forfeiture.

United States v. 422 Casks of Wine, 26 U.S. 547 (1828), is an 1828 United States Supreme Court civil forfeiture case between the United States and 422 casks of Malaga wine. The case was brought after the United States moved to seize the wine on the grounds that it had been deliberately mislabeled as sherry to get a tax drawback, and the buyers objected. The original trial was ruled in favor of the United States but was ordered to be retried after errors were discovered concerning jurisdiction. In the subsequent retrial, the Supreme Court ruled against the United States; however, they did grant them a certificate of seizure on probable cause.

South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, 785 N.W.2d 272, is a 2010 Supreme Court of South Dakota civil forfeiture case brought by the American state of South Dakota against fifteen cats that they had seized on the grounds of interfering with a driver's visibility. The seizure was challenged by the owner of the cats and the court found on a 3–2 majority that the seizure was lawful because of the risk to pedestrians as well as to the cats.

Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) 191 Neb. 462, 215 N.W.2d 849 (1974) is a Nebraska Supreme Court civil forfeiture case. It was brought by the American state of Nebraska to seize a Rambler Gremlin on the sole grounds it was transporting illegal marijuana. The owner appealed against the forfeiture decision on the grounds of a claimed lack of due process. The court ruled 4–2 and sustained the confiscation as lawful.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 "A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - Welcome". Archived from the original on 2013-03-30. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  2. 1 2 3 3rd Amended Krimstock Order, October 1, 2007
  3. 1 2 A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - A Quick Summary
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2002)
  5. ↑ County of Nassau v. Canavan, 1 N.Y.3d 134, 802 N.E.2d 616 (2003)
  6. 1 2 O'Brien Amicus, Alvarez v. Smith, page 5
  7. ↑ "N.Y.C. Code Section 14-140". Archived from the original on 2012-07-07. Retrieved 2012-02-14.
  8. ↑ "38 R.C.N.Y. Sections 12-01 through 12-19". Archived from the original on 2012-07-10. Retrieved 2012-02-14.
  9. ↑ O'Brien Amicus, Alvarez v. Smith, page 6-7
  10. ↑ Rohde, David (28 February 1999). "The High Price of Drunken Driving Law". The New York Times. p. 28.
  11. ↑ O'Brien Amicus, Alvarez v. Smith, page 7
  12. ↑ Fries, Jacob H. (3 July 2001). "4,000 Cars Seized in Effort To Halt Drunken Driving". The New York Times. p. 2.
  13. 1 2 Krimstock Memorandum Opinion and Order filed August 15, 2007
  14. ↑ Saulny, Susan (9 March 2004). "City Police Giving Back Seized Cars". The New York Times. p. 1.
  15. ↑ 2nd Amended Krimstock Order, December 6, 2005
  16. ↑ OATH Rules of Practice
  17. ↑ "CITYADMIN, A library of decisions decided by NYC agencies". Archived from the original on 2012-02-15. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  18. ↑ A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - Separate Forfeiture Proceedings are Possible
  19. 1 2 3 A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC The Police Must Give you Notice
  20. ↑ A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - You Must Attend the Hearing
  21. 1 2 A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - You May Bring an Attorney
  22. 1 2 A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - The Settlement Conference
  23. ↑ A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - If You were Arrested for DWI
  24. ↑ A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - If You are an Innocent (Uninvolved) Owner
  25. 1 2 3 4 A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - The Hearing Itself
  26. 1 2 3 A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - The Police Officer Will Not be Present
  27. 1 2 3 A Guide to Krimstock Hearings in NYC - Plan to Respond to what the Police Must Prove
  28. 1 2 Alvarez v. Smith, 130 S. Ct. 576 (2009)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.