General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums9-0 SCOTUS ruling against asset forfeiture, this is a big deal
Just came out an hour ago
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/430742-supreme-court-clamps-down-on-excessive-fines-by-states
This is a really big deal as it is the first time the 8th amendment has been applied to limit penalties and forfeiture at the state / local level. It opens the door wide to additional challenges against unreasonable fines and the common practice of seizing unrelated assets from suspects.
The case in question involved an individual with a drug related offense with a maximum fine of 10k. He had purchased a car with 40k of money from a life insurance policy paid out when his father died. His car was seized under the pretense that it had been used to transport drugs.
Sinistrous
(4,249 posts)The Mouth
(3,148 posts)One very prominent Democratic presidential contender was strongly for civil asset forfeiture, and some Republicans are on record as being very much against it.
Lucky Luciano
(11,253 posts)Ya gotta be fucked in the head to think asset forfeiture was just.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)Joe Biden and his role in mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.
Lucky Luciano
(11,253 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)It was the way it was applied. We had state cops doing stop and seize on the interstates esp. I-10.
Don't want to get rid of all forfeiture, esp, now with the Trump/Russia charges being applied.
themaguffin
(3,826 posts)Nevilledog
(51,080 posts)Worse case I was personally involved in challenging was a brand new Mustang seized in Arizona by the Feds after the young man driving it was stopped and arrested for having less than a pound of weed. While we were filing motions arguing against the seizure the guy started getting parking tickets from San Francisco. Turns out the DEA was using the vehicle before any court had authorized its forfeiture. He got the car back.
And then there was the plane the Feds tried to seize..........
happybird
(4,605 posts)the jewelry my friend's wife had inherited from her Grandmother. They also took the house, 2 cars, and a motorcycle, all bought before his short involvement with an MC. He had a great job and didn't make any money from the club.
They went through all the proper channels to get their property returned. The only items returned were a few pocketknives and his old club gear with the patches cut off. That's it. A big "haha, fuck you." It was total bullshit, nothing but a straight up robbery. The didn't even get their digital cameras and laptop with their daughter's baby pics on them back.
Nevilledog
(51,080 posts)Legalized stealing.
Hamlette
(15,411 posts)slumcamper
(1,606 posts)Or "Individual 1."
Am I missing something here?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)warrant seizure of darn near anything he has, even under this ruling.
I doubt RBG or other 3 Justices would side with anything that protects those crooks.
infullview
(981 posts)gives the fed justifiable reasons to seize his assets.
Hamlette
(15,411 posts)It seems to me that the gov't can prove he failed to pay taxes in the millions. If so, the seizure will be upheld under this decision.
Cerulean Southpaw
(32 posts)Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor would side with anything that protects the constitution, even when those crooks get protected by it too.
It's the right wing ones that you can almost always count on to say "I don't like this guy so screw him even if it screws everyone". Especially Thomas.
Like you said, this won't protect Manafort or the others anyway.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Is that supposed to settle the argument on whether seizing all assets, some of which may not have been used in crimes is OK?
These things are litigiously debatable.
majdrfrtim
(317 posts)I suspect that unrelated assets is the operative phrase here, so *penalties* are probably not prohibited by this ruling, nor would illicitly-gained monies, I suppose. That being said, IANAL!
Hamlette
(15,411 posts)if they had enough to "sell" which was basically more than residue in a pipe, you lost your car IF the narcs wanted your car. Have a cute little VW or a nice Porsche? Gone. Have a 10 year old honda? They wouldn't take it unless it would fuck with your life in a major way. And of course it was completely up to the cops. The assholes wanted the cars. The good guys said "no biggie".
LiberalArkie
(15,713 posts)And does that mean that the police can not take someones home?
A HERETIC I AM
(24,365 posts)I believe you are thinking of interstate 40. Tennessee is notorious for seizing cash from people driving across I-40, much more so than anything I have ever heard of on 10.
LiberalArkie
(15,713 posts)California to Florida route
alwaysinasnit
(5,065 posts)law enforcement thieves has deterred me. This is great news.
Ligyron
(7,627 posts)Looking for interesting attractions, etc. to check out and experience along the way just now as that's always a big part of the fun.
Don't plan on bringing any weed or illicit substances with us but we will no doubt have some cash on us as most travelers always do. I need to figure out what the deal is with law enforcement seizing people's money.
hmmm...
alwaysinasnit
(5,065 posts)please consider posting about them.
Ligyron
(7,627 posts)I will certainly document this journey as it may well be the last big road trip we take in this lifetime.
klook
(12,154 posts)Have a blast! I would have a hard time leaving New Orleans... then again, in the summertime, maybe not.
I want to do some road trips, too -- up the east coast to Maine, to the Southwest high desert, and maybe down to Key West.
Ligyron
(7,627 posts)Let's see - Café du Monde in the cool of the AM for café au lait or maybe French roast with chicory but for sure a ton of Beignet either way to give Metformin a reason for existing.
While sure, it may get on the warm side later on, I figure oyster po-boys or red beans and rice will make for a couple of decent lunches and of course we plan on giving Antoine's a good working over one night at least before killing bunch of brain cells some place in the French Quarter.
The big question I'm researching now is: what comes next after New Orleans?
MurrayDelph
(5,293 posts)When I was growing up in L.A., the Highway Department put up a sign in Santa Monica, where the I-10 begins at US1, declaring it to be The Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway. I took it as a challenge to verify one day. Unbeknownst to me at the time, when she was a kid, my wife set herself the same goal.
When my dad passed away in 2004, we inherited his car, which we didn't need, as we both had newer cars. But we also had a good friend in Orlando, who was just getting by, had also just lost his father, and was driving a car held together (inside and out) with duct tape.
So we drove my dad's car from Los Angeles to Jacksonville (where the 10 stops being a freeway, but continues all the way to a beach parking lot), then down to Orlando, where we then informed our friend that even though we were flying home, the car we came in wasn't a rental, it was his.
Our trip predates the Asset Forfeiture (aka Theft Under Color of Authority) boom, but I'd suggest that if you don't already have accounts with a credit union, open one so you only have to carry a reasonable amount of cash on you (which is one of the things the badged highwaymen look for), and can replenish as needed without service fees.
The best parts of the trip for us were New Orleans, and the slight detour up to Carlsbad Caverns. But there are also a bunch of public parks and gardens along the way.
shanti
(21,675 posts)that asset forfeiture was one of the ways he intended to fund his feckin wall?
lunatica
(53,410 posts)My understanding is that it doesnt require a crime by the property owner for the government to just take property away from people for their government projects.
Please correct me if Im wrong, because Trump is quite capable of breaking the law or using the laws to his ends. He does it all the time.
There is compensation where eminent domain is enforced. No compensation would cause the seizure to be simple theft.
So there would be compensation though the property owner could sue, right! I assume it isnt the same as asset forfeiture which should entail a criminal conviction, without compensation.
Is Trump really saying hell use asset forfeiture to take property which normally would be eminent domain? If he is, what is he basing that on? Is there a law he can use?
quakerboy
(13,919 posts)He is planning to take some money from a fund holding money the government gained via asset forfeiture.
Which I am sure is pissing off plenty of LE, because they generally seem to regard that as their play money.
Salviati
(6,008 posts)Apparently there are lots of people that still haven't been compensated for land seized under GWB the last time this wall nonsense came up.
Amishman
(5,555 posts)There was a case in my area a number of years back where compensation was based on the current value of recently sold properties along a particular road. The problem was the road was being widened into a highway which was why properties along it were being taken. Because of the incoming highway, the houses being sold were going extremely cheaply as no one wanted to buy a house squished up against a newly constructed high traffic multi-lane road. All the home owners were completely screwed over by the state.
not_the_one
(2,227 posts)but this will be the first thing turdface will pull out of his ass to fall back on if assets are taken through rico....
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Putin holds the IOUs
stopdiggin
(11,296 posts)Yes,it is a big deal.
And 2) should have been addressed by the courts (AND legislative and executive) long, long ago.
And 3) further has been recognized by virtual EVERYONE as a dirty, corrupt and quite possibly illegal tactic for a similarly long, long while. (with the obvious exception of a few LEO riding the gravy train -- while no doubt subscribing to the "ends justifying the means" and other such self-serving rationalizations)
And yet, a practice that absolutely STINKS of corruption has been sanctioned and persisted for years.
The Mouth
(3,148 posts)is on record as supporting it. And some genuinely otherwise scum-sucking villains on the other side are very happy with this decision.
Weird times. Good to get this settled before the general election.
stopdiggin
(11,296 posts)Perhaps I should clarify.
I am not necessarily against ALL examples of civil forfeiture.
The problem is with the gratuitous (and oftentimes frankly illegal) exercise of the principle. The places where law enforcement has CLEARLY overstepped.
The SC made a point of singling out a case where the property seized was demonstrated to be NOT a product of criminal activity.
As a first step (and as a signal to the lower courts) I think this is an excellent first step.
And I take no position on, nor see a lot of merit in examining, who else is on either this or that side of the fence.
Just one guy's opinion.
The Mouth
(3,148 posts)candidate I really like uses this opportunity to renounce their position on Civil Asset Forfeiture!
Any support whatsoever of civil asset forfeiture in the absence of a guilty verdict would render anyone as utterly unacceptable; deal breaker for me.
Volaris
(10,270 posts)I moonlight at at a motel. About twice a week, we have a guy from Homeland security drug task force? come in and ask if we've seen anything suspicious. He's looking for interstate drug trafficking, and I believe he's a good person, and a good LEO.
But I'm gonna ask him about this next time I see him, and his response will tell me a lot.
Personally, I'm happy about this.
And that this decision was NINE TO NOTHING, tells me the SC was not fucking around with this, and ALSO thought the practice was bullshit.
Nine Zip isn't so much a court opinion anymore, as it is a goddamn MESSAGE.
MagickMuffin
(15,936 posts)Kudos to the SCOTUS for defending the citizens from money grubbing law enforcers.
Now, let's see them do something about the 4th Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)DarthDem
(5,255 posts)They just don't get the publicity that split decisions do, I think.
oldsoftie
(12,531 posts)Volaris
(10,270 posts)Heh good luck with that.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)protection of the same people, though? Kavanaugh's writings, for instance, show a strong authoritarian pattern of increasing the power of the state over the individual. But a lot of very wealthy people and businesses, the kind authoritarians believe should run the state, have also been vulnerable to seizures. And his writings also show a pattern of protecting the wealthy and powerful when conflicts -- like this one -- arise.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Gives me hope.
DFW
(54,349 posts)But I sure as hell wish they'd vote that way more often.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So it really shouldn't be all that surprising.
This time the civil libertarians were on the side of the little guy who got screwed, and libertarians usually don't give a rat's ass about anyone. Their view is usually that bad fortune is your own damn fault, period. This time, they have recognized that people are being wronged, and it needs to stop. Jumping in on the wronged party's behalf is decidedly atypical for them, unless they are the wronged party.
The Mouth
(3,148 posts)Libertarians are also very anti drug war and also against foreign intervention, even if ass backwards on corporations and economic inequality.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Looneytarians pretend to be civil libertarians, but really they are only civil libertarians whenever it doesnt conflict with monied interests. In this case it doesnt.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The former is the ACLU, the latter is Ayn Rand.
Cerulean Southpaw
(32 posts)because the guy was caught with heroin, and that's the excuse they used to seize his truck.
The right wing likes to throw the book at drug violations without thinking about the precedent, and like the saying "hard cases make bad law".
It's good that the supremes all understood that this time, instead of the right wing ones being statists.
angrychair
(8,695 posts)But for taking properties from people to build trumps fucking wall?!?
George II
(67,782 posts)JT45242
(2,262 posts)I took several forensic science graduate classes. This ruling will be a major setback to crime labs and police forces in general.
Each state had a law, passed at the request of police department and similar groups, that mandated that the money used from seized assets could only be used to buy equipment: Kevlar vests, ballistic analysis microscope, mass spectrometer, etc.
The NY State crime lab is called"the house that crack built." Those funds have allowed crime labs to get better DNA testing equipment which shortens the backlog of cases and allows the testing of old rape kits.
There will be problems related to this decision.
Although some localities may have abused it, it did provide funds for law enforcement by taking from those who broke the law. The comment about the parking tickets was a clear violation. All assets are legally required to be kept in impound until a case us resolved as a conviction, plea deal, or acquittal.
I know that ten years ago the Kentucky State crime lab was using equipment and procedures that were 5 years behind what high school students were doing with electrophoresis. I fear that will happen again.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Fund crime labs and train the next generation with money from a state's general fund. If it's important, dedicate tax revenues to it. This also has the salutary effect of occasional legislative review of these programs.
The Mouth
(3,148 posts)as long as any forfeiture follows a GUILTY VERDICT.
Better that any entity not get a CENT than one dollar be taken from an innocent person
happybird
(4,605 posts)exactly, can be seized after a guilty verdict. Items attained or bought with money earned through illegal activity? Sure. No problem.
But how do they determine what was purchased with legitimate income and what was purchased with the illicit funds? What about items purchased prior to the illegal activity? What about family heirlooms or property that belongs to family members? They don't even attempt to suss that out. They just take it all.
They can take *everything* regardless of the total value or when/how the items were acquired. And then you have to pay through the nose to mount an attempt to prove a negative. And you'll lose.
As that one Sheriff infamously said, "it's like pennies from Heaven." They do not give a fuck, as long as they keep getting "free" stuff and "toys."
There's way too much grey area. This must be fixed with clear laws and hard limits. The police should have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any seized property was acquired or bought through illicit activities.
The Mouth
(3,148 posts)My point being that *NOTHING* should ever be seized without a 'Guilty' verdict. Period, in any circumstances, for any reason. Let's put this genie back in the bottle and disenfranchise and deport (after applying a good coat of tar and feathers) any craven fascist who even suggests is should be loose
eggplant
(3,911 posts)Also, my own municipality in NY voted to pay for an off-duty cop to patrol a high traffic corridor solely for the purpose of revenue generation. Civil asset forfeiture is commonly used for simple theft.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)NickB79
(19,233 posts)Maybe if we cut off some of their illicit funding, they won't gear up and act like every traffic stop is a mission into goddamn Fallujah and every ounce of weed is a hand grenade.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)For years over petty nonviolent drug offenses. Of course the death penalty could be done away with as well and that would save a boat load.
Blues Heron
(5,931 posts)Basic.
Cry me a river about the police labs! What utter BS.
Uncle Joe
(58,349 posts)Thanks for the thread Amishman.
question everything
(47,470 posts)She supported this while CA AG
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)You forgot to mention that part. There are cases where the amount of evidence stacked against a person makes it rather plain that the person is a criminal that is dangerous to society, in such a case, taking assets from that person is in the general public's interest.
Since you are into asking questions about democrats running for our party nomination for President. What does Bernie have to say about tens of thousands of gun deaths per year and a terrorist or job rage event every week involving guns?
The Mouth
(3,148 posts)We need to examine our candidates *AND* make sure they listen to us. That's what the Primary is for. I could see Bernie's support for RKBA being an utter deal breaker, at least in the Primary, for a Democratic voter.
I. for one, am damned well into, and supportive of "asking questions about Democrats running for our party nomination for President", and anyone who isn't is a fool. And this applies to EVERY candidate running.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is an issue that cuts across party lines, there are as many on the right, as on the left against it, and there are people on the right and the left that see some legitimate use of it.
Personally, I'm utterly against it in *ALL* cases where there is not a guilty verdict; better to let 10,000 drug dealing gangsters run loose than take a dollar from an innocent person. OTOH, if Kamala wins the primary, I'm voting 'D', end of subject.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)yonder
(9,663 posts)To me, the 9-0 decision is curious in that this awful practice of pre-conviction CAF was an obvious sore thumb that needed tending too. Why did it take so long?
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)prosecutors that resulted in some very unfair results. Its organized theft by the State of someone's assets. Even
unwitting family members could lose property and the legal costs to contest these civil asset forfeitures is often as much if not more than the forfeited item is worth.
lpbk2713
(42,753 posts)could take ownership of a citizen's private property.
It doesn't seem legal and it certainly isn't justice.
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)But they went to far and started going after property that was purchased with clean money and/or property of an innocent party who just happened to lend a car to a friend who used it to pick up drugs to sell. I had a case where grandparents purchased a new car for grandson who used it to drive to a house to commit burglary. They went after the new car which had no money owed. After fighting to get it back for 2 years my client gave up. The law says if grandparents knew or should have known of his illegal activity then even though the car was purchased by them it could be forfeited. And the standard of prof was preponderance of evidence.
TexasBlueDog
(43 posts)Asset forfeiture went to the soul of who we are as a country. It is truly evil, it makes common thieves of the people we should trust the most. I would warn friends from overseas to not bring cash to America, I told friends who were fortunate enough to have paid for cars to put a small lien on it because the cop thieves won't take a car with a loan against it, too much trouble getting the title. Maybe some professional courtesy among thieves too.
RussBLib
(9,006 posts)Civil Asset Forfeiture will go on, it's just the disproportionate nature of the penalty that is going away. Seems fair. Or fairer.
Demovictory9
(32,449 posts)KY_EnviroGuy
(14,490 posts)once assets have been seized, they're extremely difficult (and expensive) to get back.
For example, let's say a guy is caught with drugs or stolen property in his car at night, and cops take the car to an impound lot. Unfortunately, the guy's wife has to have that car to earn much of the family's normal income. Does it not require quite an ordeal to get the vehicle released back to that family?
Why not rather than seizure, somehow earmark the asset with identification for the court with a condition it can't be sold pending due process in court, so that subsequent court action could order seizure if justified?
samnsara
(17,616 posts)Liberty Belle
(9,534 posts)and a cop who found it in his car during a traffic stop decided that was probably cause that he must be doing drugs or something illegal. There was no evidence of any crime but his money got taken, and at the time I read the story he was on the verge of losing his home and restaurant because of that loss.
Some legal businesses deal in a lot of cash, and that alone should not be considered adequate evidence to seize anybody's assets.
Frankly I don't think assets should ever be seized unless there is a conviction and then only from the individual who did the crime, not innocent relatives.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,563 posts)Seizures have been made on FAR flimsier evidence, and, in fact, no evidence at all. The entity charged in the crime that is the pretext for seizure is also the defendant. So....US v $1000 Cash for instance.
Worse, you have to PROVE that your asset is innocent, and unrelated to any criminal activity. Police have been using this gigantic injustice as bank accounts. One precinct had a rec hockey team, and used money seized to buy a Zamboni, and another bought a margarita machine.
Vital crime-fighting tools, legitimately obtained, no doubt,