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

51–60 of 457 posts

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

#51

Post by repiret »

burtonator wrote: post #26

What's frustrating here is that so much of our government depends on actual case law. This it's possible for massive injustice to happen for decades before we have a resolution. This is one of the reasons technology can be so frightening because there's no case law and the rate of technology is exponential which means there is the potential for GREAT evil to happen without any resolution except to fight it out and ge…

The alternative to case law is that ambiguities in the statute are interpreted differently each time. Being subject to the law, I would much rather live in a system designed to automatically reduce ambiguities over time, rather than to have to wait for the legislature to have the political will and resources to address them.

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

#52

Post by [deleted] »

borkt wrote: post #4
DontGiveTwoFlux wrote: post #2

A swipe against excessive civil forfeitures succeeds. These aggressive actions require citizens to forfeit property far in excess of any harm committed. In the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few hundred dollars of heroine. We have laws to punish illegal behavior, but it’s not right that all your property get snatched up too. The most egregious of these cases often involve no due process at…

It gets even more interesting when they are federal but not state crimes. In this case, officers from a relatively far away jurisdiction were seizing cash and cannabis from people following all state and local rules. Just one of the individuals was awarded 1.2 million last week. If this ruling applies to all previous cases police departments are going to go broke paying this back. laws. https://www.kqed.org/news/1170…

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by dmitrygr »

Best part is Gorsuch's half-page long concurring opinion which places Indiana in its place with a wonderful last sentence: "But nothing in this case turns on that question, and, regardless of the precise vehicle, there can be no serious doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect the freedom from excessive fines enshrined in the Eighth Amendment. "

Thomas is not far behind with: " As a constitutionally enumerated right understood to be a privilege of American citizenship, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies in full to the States. "

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

#54

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

DigiMortal wrote: post #50
jayd16 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems pretty spry for a corpse.

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

#55

Post by [deleted] »

DigiMortal wrote: post #50
jayd16 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#56

Post by dsfyu404ed »

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?

The due process issue was tangential.

From the ruling[1]:

The court did not address the Clause’s application to civil in rem forfeitures, nor did the State ask it to do so. Timbs thus sought this Court’s review only of the question whether the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

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

#57

Post by GeekyBear »

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".

Quite recently, we have had two Presidents claim that non-citizens had no right to challenge their imprisonment by the United States (Bush in Gitmo and Obama on Bagram AFB in the Middle East) who ran smack into a Supreme Court that found their actions unconstitutional.

The notion that Constitutional protections cannot apply to non-citizens is simply not true, even when applied to non-citizens being held by the US off of US soil.

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

#58

Post by fencepost »

DontGiveTwoFlux wrote: post #2

A swipe against excessive civil forfeitures succeeds. These aggressive actions require citizens to forfeit property far in excess of any harm committed. In the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few hundred dollars of heroine. We have laws to punish illegal behavior, but it’s not right that all your property get snatched up too. The most egregious of these cases often involve no due process at…

Possibly relevant is also that the car was purchased with (presumably documented) legitimate money - received from his father's life insurance policy. The reasoning was apparently that he used the vehicle in committing the crime, not that he'd purchased it with money derived from criminal activity.

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

#60

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

DigiMortal wrote: post #48
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

She was seen in court on Tuesday. So based upon the best evidence she is clearly not dead.
Post reply on HN