Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 251.0

90 

ALVAREZ  v.  SMITH 

Opinion of the Court 

would  be  reasonable”  in  the  circumstances.  § 570/505(b). 
When  an  ofﬁcer  has  seized  property  without  a  warrant,  the 
relevant  law enforcement  agency must  notify the  State’s at­
torney  within  52  days  of  the  seizure;  the  State’s  attorney 
must notify  the property owner of  any impending forfeiture 
within a further 45 days; and, if the owner wishes to contest 
forfeiture, the State’s attorney must begin judicial forfeiture 
proceedings within yet a further 45 days.  See ch.  725, 
§§ 150/5–150/6.  Thus,  the  statute  gives  the  State  up  to  142 
days, nearly ﬁve months, to begin judicial forfeiture proceed-
ings—during  which  time  the  statute  permits  the  State  to 
keep the car or cash within its possession. 

On  November  22,  2006,  six  individuals  (respondents  or 
plaintiffs) brought this federal civil rights action against de­
fendants  the  city  of  Chicago,  the  superintendent  of  the  Chi­
cago Police Department, and the Cook County State’s Attor­
ney  (the  petitioner  here,  whom  we  shall  call  the  “State’s 
Attorney”).  See Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983.  Three 
of  the  individuals,  Chermane  Smith,  Edmanuel  Perez,  and 
Tyhesha  Brunston,  said  that  earlier  in  2006  the  police  had, 
upon their arrests, seized their cars without a warrant.  See 
Complaint  ¶ 25,  App.  34a  (Smith,  seizure  on  Jan.  19,  2006); 
id.,  ¶ 26,  at  34a  (Perez,  seizure  on  Mar.  8,  2006);  id.,  ¶ 27,  at 
34a (Brunston, seizure on Apr. 8, 2006); Plaintiffs’ Motion for 
Class Certiﬁcation ¶ 8, App. 39a.  The other three plaintiffs, 
Michelle  Waldo,  Kirk  Yunker,  and  Tony  Williams,  said  that 
earlier  in  2006  police  had,  upon  their  arrests,  seized  their 
cash  without  a  warrant.  See  Complaint  ¶ 28,  App.  34a–35a 
(Waldo,  seizure  on  Jan.  20,  2006);  id.,  ¶ 29,  at  35a  (Yunker, 
seizure on Sept. 26, 2006); id., ¶ 30, at 35a (Williams, seizure 
in  July  2006);  Plaintiffs’  Motion  for  Class  Certiﬁcation  ¶ 8, 
App.  39a.  The  plaintiffs  added  that  the  police  department 
still had custody of their property.  See Complaint ¶¶ 24–30, 
App. 34a–35a.  They claimed that the failure of the State to 
provide  a  speedy  postseizure  hearing  violated  the  Federal 
Due  Process  Clause.  See  U. S.  Const.,  Amdt.  14,  § 1.  And