Steve Marshall on Law Enforcement

Disputes over the policies, conduct, and oversight of law enforcement agencies.

How we classify topics

Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.

Statement history

2 statements on this page. Dates: August 14, 2023 to May 10, 2024

2 matching statements. Dates: August 14, 2023 to May 10, 2024

2 published statements. Dates: August 14, 2023 to May 10, 2024

Defended or excused

2 published statements. Dates: August 14, 2023 to May 10, 2024

2 statements on this page. Dates: August 14, 2023 to May 10, 2024

Steve Marshall

Role at the time: Attorney general of Alabama, in a news release from his office

May 10, 2024Defended or excused

Statement summary

After the ruling, Marshall said the Court had affirmed Alabama's earlier wins and confirmed that law enforcement respected the owners' constitutional rights.

“The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed our previous victories in these cases. Law enforcement officers across Alabama work hard every day to keep their fellow citizens safe while respecting their constitutional rights. And the Court confirmed that those rights were respected”

Read the official statement

Alabama Attorney General news release: Attorney General Marshall wins U.S. Supreme Court case (May 10, 2024)Second paragraph, statement of Attorney General Steve Marshall.

Marshall's office welcomed the ruling the day after it was issued. The release says the owners had access to the courts within days and quotes Alabama's argument that another hearing would interfere with law enforcement.

Archived copy

Why we used this label

The reference point is Alabama's practice, defended by Attorney General Steve Marshall, of holding seized cars until the civil forfeiture hearing without a separate preliminary hearing, which the owners argued the Due Process Clause requires. Label: Defended or excused. Marshall welcomes the ruling and says the process respected the owners' rights. The closest competing label is Minimized; it loses because he does not acknowledge a concern and then downplay it: he says the rights were respected.

Read statement Supreme Court rules due process does not require a preliminary hearing before a seized car is held for forfeiture

Steve Marshall

Role at the time: Attorney general of Alabama, in the state respondents' Supreme Court brief filed by his office

August 14, 2023Defended or excused

Response to this claim

When a government seizes personal property for civil forfeiture, a timely forfeiture proceeding provides all the process the Constitution requires, so owners have no right to a separate interim retention hearing.

“When a government seizes personal property for civil forfeiture, a timely judicial forfeiture proceeding provides all the process that is due.”

Read the original textBrief for the state respondents, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall et al., No. 22-585 (August 14, 2023)Summary of argument, Part I.A.

Alabama argued that a timely forfeiture proceeding provides all the process due, and that an interim retention hearing could jeopardize the government's interest in the property and ongoing criminal investigations.

Archived copy

Why we used this label

The reference point is Alabama's practice, defended by Attorney General Steve Marshall, of holding seized cars until the civil forfeiture hearing without a separate preliminary hearing, which the owners argued the Due Process Clause requires. Label: Defended or excused. The state's brief argues directly that its process satisfied due process without a retention hearing. The closest competing label is Challenged characterization; it loses because the brief defends the practice on the merits rather than only disputing how the owners describe it.

Read statement Supreme Court rules due process does not require a preliminary hearing before a seized car is held for forfeiture