U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
11–20 of 457 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#12This article has left me confused. Does this mean civil forfeiture is unconstitutional? Or just that it can only be used if it does not constitute an "excessive" fine?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#13Listen and read the oral argument here (oyez):
—edited, correct case:
https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio...
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#14> Justice Thomas agreed with the result in the case, Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091, but said he would have gotten to the same place by a different route. While the majority relied on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas said he would have ruled “the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the 14th Amendment.”…
That’s not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was passed. Since then the clause in that amendment saying no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process has been interpreted to mean most of the bill of rights also applies to the states. This ruling said as much for the 8th amendment prohibitions on excessive fines.
Thomas just wanted to use a different clause of the 14th amendment to achieve the same outcome.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#15Non-paywalled press release from the Institute for Justice, who worked on this case as part of their mission to fight civil forfeiture: https://ij.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-unanimo...
"Ruling Requires Cities and States—Not Just the Federal Government— To Abide by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause"
Wow, this is pretty big. They just extended constitutional protection of this clause to lower levels of government.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#16Hmm I wonder how this will affect the other civil forfeiture practice of charging the item itself with the crime (eg: "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" [0]) where the owner of the property is never actually charged with a crime. Maybe this will stop that because without a conviction any fine could be considered excessive?
The logic behind these cases has always baffled me. How do courts get around due process requirements of seizing claimed property like that?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#17Non-paywalled press release from the Institute for Justice, who worked on this case as part of their mission to fight civil forfeiture: https://ij.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-unanimo...
"Ruling Requires Cities and States—Not Just the Federal Government— To Abide by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause" Wow, this is pretty big. They just extended constitutional protection of this clause to lower levels of government.
[deleted]
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#18Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19209206
You're right, but that article is somehow more narrowly scoped, which probably explains why this one got upvoted so quickly. Given that difference, maybe we'll keep this one.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#19Non-paywalled press release from the Institute for Justice, who worked on this case as part of their mission to fight civil forfeiture: https://ij.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-unanimo...
"Ruling Requires Cities and States—Not Just the Federal Government— To Abide by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause" Wow, this is pretty big. They just extended constitutional protection of this clause to lower levels of government.
It seems to be a pattern where protections aren't extended until a state or some government gets silly and the courts just decide that it is absurd to not have the same protection at that level and extends it.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#20Thank goodness. Overly aggressive local, state, and national prosecutors need a reality check.