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

71–80 of 457 posts

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

#71

Post by jrockway »

repiret wrote: post #51
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.

The executive branch can also help here. Someone can run for district attorney, say "my office won't use civil forfeiture", and it's gone.

What is scary is that that's not the platform people run on, or win elections by running on.

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

#72

Post by fencepost »

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.

There will be some cases where that's likely to be a slam-dunk. IIRC there were some cases in the western states some years back where relatively small amounts of drugs (personal-use levels) were used as reasons for seizure of some large farms or ranches.

In at least one of those cases I think it would have to be the estate pursuing it though.

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

#73

Post by pixl97 »

Theodores wrote: post #62
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…

> In the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few hundred dollars of heroine. Interesting perspective there. Some people think that heroin dealers deserve to be fully hung, drawn and quartered, their head placed on a spike to be pecked at by the crows. Others might think that 'it was just a bit of dope, why should he have to forfeit anything for that?'. The car is potentially proceeds of crime i…

>The car is potentially proceeds of crime

Then the state must prove that case rather than it being in implicit assumption.

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

#74

Post by Fellshard »

jrockway wrote: post #71
repiret wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The executive branch can also help here. Someone can run for district attorney, say "my office won't use civil forfeiture", and it's gone. What is scary is that that's not the platform people run on, or win elections by running on.

That's even more arbitrary, and won't solve the problem, as the next administration can reintroduce it. It's a temporary patch of the problem, and is technically also an abdication of the executive from their assigned role.

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

#75

Post by dba7dba »

What I'd like to know is if private property that was seized in the past will be returned?

One of my friend's dad had a hip surgery and was bed bound for a few weeks. The family had to be at work so they hired a live in helper who was an older woman in her 60s.

This older woman's story was a tragic one to hear.

She had immigrated from Asia to US with her husband and family and had managed to buy a 3bed house. Well life happened and they ended up divorcing in her 60s, and she ended up as owner of the house.

With no income and no real skill, she rented out rooms in her house to pay bills. One renter was a drug dealer. When he was arrested, somehow the lady was dragged into the case and she ended up losing the house to the police, due to this seizure of private property. This was the first time I heard about such practices.

With no house and no other choices, she had to turn to working as a live-in-helper to avoid becoming homeless.

I hope all properties seized through such cases are returned.

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

#76

Post by ceejayoz »

saas_sam wrote: post #40
colmmacc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. If this "terrifies" you, I encourage you to reflect on your fears and whether some of them may be disproportionate to reality.

> No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens.

That's fine, but affording no rights to non-citizens would be highly problematic. Some argue the Constitution doesn't protect the rights of illegal immigrants, for example, but it makes clear distinctions by using "persons" in some spots and "citizens" in others.

Persons have a right to due process. Citizens have a right to vote. The difference is very important.

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

#77

Post by orblivion »

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

Consider if you're looking at each piece of news with this "sketchy" filter in mind. Lots of things can look sketchy. But there are alternate explanations for lots of things. For whatever reason, we're better tuned for continuing a bias than we are for breaking it when we see the right amount of counter arguments.

Before you go too far down a rabbit hole, do a quick reality check. Major news sources are now reporting that she _appeared in court_ to deliver this. If this is a lie, it would take an absurd amount of coordination by the media, the other members of the supreme court, perhaps even members of the public in attendance. This should overrule any sense of sketchiness, however all the dots seemed to connect.

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

#79

Post by renholder »

jrockway wrote: post #71
repiret wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The executive branch can also help here. Someone can run for district attorney, say "my office won't use civil forfeiture", and it's gone. What is scary is that that's not the platform people run on, or win elections by running on.

>Someone can run for district attorney, say "my office won't use civil forfeiture", and it's gone.

Until the next DA comes in... Being seen as "tough on crime" is what gets the votes, sadly.

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

#80

Post by wool_gather »

fencepost wrote: post #58
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.

This is 100% relevant, since the "tainted" nature of the money gained from criminal activity is one of the justifications for seizure.
Post reply on HN