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

181–190 of 457 posts

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

#181

Post by School-Cotton »

mehrdadn wrote: post #124
dragonwriter wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the rest of the court found the the excessive punishment protection of the eighth amendment was applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment as an essential right and therefore a component of “liberty” as used in the due process clause. Thomas disagrees with this fairly conventional incorporation argument and the idea of the protection as a fundamental right, but feels instead that a…

> noncitizens necessarily do not enjoy the privileges and immunities of citizens. Would you have more reading on this? It's something I've wondered about but never really come across a comprehensive answer to. What rights do noncitizens not have that citizens do?

For example: the right to vote, the right to run for elected office, the right to enter US territory and remain there indefinitely.

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

#182

Post by gumby »

kgwxd wrote: post #159
gumby wrote: post #131

BTW, if you have civil forfeiture at all (which I think should't exist), why does the money go to the seizing agency? Shouldn't it all go straight to the general fund to avoid a conflict of interest? Ditto punitive damages in court cases (where the defendent pays, say, $3M in restitution but say $500M in punitive damages because they could easily afford the $3M and need to suffer enough to change their ways). Why doe…

Also agree it shouldn't exist, but if there were a general fund, it shouldn't go towards funding any government agencies even in a distributed fashion. Maybe credit it out to all tax payers?

Essentially it would be credited to all taxpayers as less tax revenue would in principle be required but in reality it'd be a drop in the bucket, which is the point.

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

#183

Post by rtkwe »

phonon wrote: post #164
rtkwe wrote: post #16

Hmm 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 proc…

It means Austin (below) would now apply for state/local cases. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/509/602 1. Forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is a monetary punishment and, as such, is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. Pp. 2804-12. (a) The determinative question is not, as the Government would have it, whether forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal. The…

So from the sound of that it seems like civil asset forfeiture without charges filed or judgments rendered against a person should be dead in the water legally right? Because under this ruling any forfeiture under §§ 881(a) would be considered a punishment and there's a right to due process before punishment correct?

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

#184

Post by icebraining »

Cyclone_ wrote: post #78

I'm not terribly concerned with this particular seizure from the drug dealer the case is about, but glad it sets a precedent for other cases where police may try and abuse power to pick on citizens.

Well, the court only got to set this ruling because the drug dealer in question decided to fight it all the way to the SCOTUS.

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

#185

Post by da_chicken »

School-Cotton wrote: post #171
da_chicken wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia says he was represented by the Institute for Justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana Otherwise, yes, Timbs would have to pay. You can file a petition to ask the court to waive your court costs (there's a Latin legal term for it that I believe means "with pockets turned out" or "with pockets empty" but I can't remember it), but your lawyer's time isn't covered by that.

I think in forma pauperis is the phrase you're looking for (but its literal meaning isn't what you suggest).

That is it, yes.

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

#186

Post by jakelazaroff »

Cyclone_ wrote: post #78

I'm not terribly concerned with this particular seizure from the drug dealer the case is about, but glad it sets a precedent for other cases where police may try and abuse power to pick on citizens.

Why not this case, in which police abused their power to pick on a citizen?

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

#187

Post by Spivak »

Fellshard wrote: post #151
aidenn0 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the executive believes it to be unconstitutional then it's not an abdication of their assigned role.

It's not the executive's role to determine whether something is constitutional or not.

Correct, but refusal to enforce a law is one of the checks the executive has on the legislature. When this happens it's up to the judiciary to mediate.

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

#188

Post by jhayward »

School-Cotton wrote: post #176
jhayward wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note also that corporations are 'people' but not 'citizens' and would likewise be disenfranchised from the protections provided by the bill of rights and the constitution when it came to state law. edit: there seems to be some lawyering about the difference between the meaning of 'people' and 'persons' that I do not understand at this time.

Corporations are not people, and the Supreme Court has never found that they are -- this soundbite is a misunderstanding of Citizens United v. FEC .

Interesting. Did the SC (in an 1888 case) not say: "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."

And does 1 USC not also say:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"

as well? I'm not sure how to align those statements with your comment. Perhaps it's a subject that only someone with a law degree can discern the meaningful difference between the claims?

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

#189

Post by nwallin »

School-Cotton wrote: post #176
jhayward wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note also that corporations are 'people' but not 'citizens' and would likewise be disenfranchised from the protections provided by the bill of rights and the constitution when it came to state law. edit: there seems to be some lawyering about the difference between the meaning of 'people' and 'persons' that I do not understand at this time.

Corporations are not people, and the Supreme Court has never found that they are -- this soundbite is a misunderstanding of Citizens United v. FEC .

Corporate personhood has a very long history in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Post reply on HN