Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 457 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#41

Post by eco »

whatshisface wrote: post #6

> 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.”…

Justice Thomas has been fighting a long battle trying to restore the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment after it was effectively removed from the constitution in the Slaughter-House Cases. He'll often issue dissents or concurrences just to raise the issue of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

The Institute For Justice (who argued this case, somewhat coincidentally) has a podcast about the 14th Amendment called Bound By Oath. They talk in depth about the Slaughter-House Cases and The Privileges or Immunities Clause in the third episode if anyone is interested in learning more.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#42

Post by lostapathy »

qrbLPHiKpiux wrote: post #3

What is scary is that something like the Patriot Act can be signed in overnight and something like this will take decades.

The interesting thing, though, is that once a civil right is established and incorporated against the states, it's basically unassailable under our system. So while it takes a long time to get those rights properly enshrined, at least they seem to be safe.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#43

Post by Aloha »

colmmacc wrote: post #33
ls612 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 excessiv…

As a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome at all. Due process is afforded to "persons".

The basic protections do apply to both citizens and legal residents - the issue is, if convicted a non-citizen may have their right to abode removed, and be deported.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#44

Post by fhrow4484 »

downandout wrote: post #5

It will be interesting to see exactly how this ruling is applied in the field. My guess is that not much will change, as the most problematic and widespread applications of civil forfeiture don’t involve a crime where a monetary fine would be allowed as a penalty. Rather, the police simply steal (they prefer the term “seize,” but it’s just stealing) the money/assets claiming that they suspect it to be the fruit of a…

>My guess is that not much will change, as the most problematic and widespread applications of civil forfeiture don’t involve a crime where a monetary fine would be allowed as a penalty

IANAL, but I see 2 reasonings:

If seizing $40000 for , wouldn't it be excessive if it's seized for doing absolutely Nothing (suspicion of a crime: max penalty = 0 jail, $0 fine) ?

And more specific to your point: if maximum penalty for a crime only involves jail time and $0 of maximum fine, wouldn't any seizure of cash/property be excessive since it's far larger than $0?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#45

Post by Aloha »

Splendor wrote: post #34
lallysingh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if it's not excessive.

How disappointing. This leaves individuals forced to prove that a fine was excessive after police have already seized their property.

This is largely a straightforward thing to do - and this ruling will make police departments much more hesitant to seize civil assets.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#46

Post by mikeyouse »

runako wrote: post #29
ls612 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 excessiv…

> Thomas just wanted to use a different clause of the 14th amendment to achieve the same outcome. Do you read anything into this? Is there a reason a justice would prefer to highlight the excessive fines provision over the due process protections?

Abortion. And immigration.

"This may seem like a minor niggling point. It's not.

The Court's recognition of a right to abortion has been rooted in the Due Process Clause. Thomas & Gorsuch's concurrences document their opposition to grounding substantive rights in that corner of the 14th am."

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1098242972162768901

"Thomas and Gorsuch announce that they would incorporate Bill of Rights through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, not the Due Process Clause. This is a wonky distinction, but one with huge stakes for immigrants. Due Process Clause protects “persons.” P or I protects “citizens.” "

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1098238933719240704

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#48

Post by DigiMortal »

DigiMortal wrote: post #31

This Ginsburg situation is sketchy

It's at least important to question things - sit back, question it and at the end examine the facts. All I'm saying

I'll just sit back and watch, there have been whispers in DC about this for several weeks. Could all just be noise

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#50

Post by DigiMortal »

jayd16 wrote: post #47
DigiMortal wrote: post #31

This Ginsburg situation is sketchy

What situation? That she wrote the opinion? In the US Supreme Court the tradition is that there is only a single majority opinion written with a single named author.

No, that she might be dead or in a vegetative state.
Post reply on HN