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

251–260 of 457 posts

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

#251

Post by adrianratnapala »

writepub wrote: post #226
da_chicken wrote: post #125

The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary. Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well. Timbs sued or appealed the…

> Timbs sued or appealed the confiscation by Indiana, which he he could prove he didn't buy with drug money. Shouldn't the burden of proof of financing lie with the state before property possession is carried out? It is unfair for the defendant to prove the source of funds for his own property

The state did prove that Timbs and committed the crime he was being fined for, the question at hand is whether the state can take away his car.

One reason might have been if it was the proceeds of drug-dealing. But that reason is not relevant since he could prove otherwise (let alone whether the burden of proof is/should be on him).

The other reason is simpler: States can fine people for stuff, but (according to the USSC) the fine can't be excessive.

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

#252

Post by pharrington »

thatoneuser wrote: post #224
sathackr wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

People here commenting that the last point isn't valid are ironically demonstrating just how much respect the bench requires. Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect.

> Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect.

And apparently, neither is lying during your sworn testimony to Congress.

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

#253

Post by wtf_is_up »

discordance wrote: post #235
sathackr wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

Minus the odd occasion of sexual assault [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault...

*alleged

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

#254

Post by caf »

aero142 wrote: post #163
theonemind wrote: post #156

Naming the property as a suit defendent seems like pure legal sophistry. The whole civil forfeiture scheme should run afoul of the the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. Originally, they had the phrase "life, liberty, and property", if I recall, but "happiness" sounded more poetic or something in the Declaration of Independence. They definitely had protection of property from the government in min…

The only argument I have heard is that it was useful for prosecuting property where no owner will claim it, or the owner is unavailable for prosecution because they are not in the country. Imagine a drug cartel shipped a large pile of cash to the US and it was seized. I could imagine it might make sense to have US vs. Big Pile of Cash because the cartel isn't going to claim it and you could prove it was likely part o…

This argument doesn't even fly. In the case that the owner is unknown you could simply file a suit against John Doe, Unidentified Owner of Big Pile Of Cash.

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

#255

Post by gamblor956 »

keko039ndnfm wrote: post #239
KorematsuFred wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from India and Indian courts are nothing but bunch of old men sermonizing everyone else. They often have barely read law, believe in extraordinary processes and completely arbitrary legal doctrines such as "constitutional morality" that compels them to actually ignore the law. Digging deep I realize that this is because most of them will retire at 60 after which they either seek lucrative jobs from their politic…

It’s the same in the US The masses are bought in and ignore it Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others

Not one of the judges on the SC questions their place the correctness of the process

They do this all the time...in nearly every decision...It's literally their job to question the correctness of the judicial process...

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

#256

Post by make3 »

This sounds so insane to me: "In fiscal year 2018, state and local agencies received $400 million through this arrangement, known as equitable sharing. The amount varied widely by agency — the Surprise Police Department in Arizona received $570,000, while the Buffalo Police Department in upstate New York got $130,000. The New York Police Department took in $7.8 million.

In Philadelphia, forfeiture proceeds once accounted for 20 percent of prosecutors’ budget, while agencies in New York and California tended to take in the highest sums, according to the Institute for Justice."

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

#257

Post by clucas »

da_chicken wrote: post #160
slowmovintarget wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct that they didn't rule on it. But they did write an opinion that was highly suggestive of what the particular finding in this case should have been. It doesn't carry the weight of law, but it isn't nothing, either.

Oh, definitely. It was a minimal ruling, but it's still a landmark. Honestly, though, this case is so perfect that I almost wonder if the Supreme Court of Indiana didn't rule the way they did just to force the issue.

That's roughly what they did, though they also said "hey, we're the Supreme Court of this state, and we're not just going to give it to them." Here is the money shot from the Indiana Supreme Court opinion:

> A second option is to await guidance from the Supreme Court and decline to find or assume incorporation until the Supreme Court decides the issue authoritatively. We choose this latter, more cautious approach for two reasons. First, although the Supreme Court has addressed this issue only in dicta, its statement in McDonald that the Clause has not been incorporated is entitled to more weight because it is the Court’s most recent. Second, Indiana is a sovereign state within our federal system, and we elect not to impose federal obligations on the State that the federal government itself has not mandated. An important corollary is that Indiana has its own system of legal, including constitutional, protections for its citizens and other persons within its jurisdiction. Absent a definitive holding from the Supreme Court, we decline to subject Indiana to a federal test that may operate to impede development of our own excessive-fines jurisprudence under the Indiana Constitution.

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

#258

Post by AnimalMuppet »

gamblor956 wrote: post #219
vonmoltke wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, a lot of the constitution is actually phrased as limits on the government rather than rights as citizens. This is because the Constitution is supposed to be an enumeration of what the government is allowed to do. The limitations are there to narrow the scope of those enumerated powers. In this context, enumerating most rights of citizens would have been redundant. The enumerated citizen rights were th…

This is because the Constitution is supposed to be an enumeration of what the government is allowed to do. This is simply not true. The Founders lived through the Articles of Confederation, in which the founding document explicitly enumerated the only powers the government would have. The Constitution was an explicit rejection of that philosophy, and was intended to create a government with broad powers. The point of…

Can you provide some evidence for your last paragraph?

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

#259

Post by keko039ndnfm »

keko039ndnfm wrote: post #239
KorematsuFred wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from India and Indian courts are nothing but bunch of old men sermonizing everyone else. They often have barely read law, believe in extraordinary processes and completely arbitrary legal doctrines such as "constitutional morality" that compels them to actually ignore the law. Digging deep I realize that this is because most of them will retire at 60 after which they either seek lucrative jobs from their politic…

It’s the same in the US The masses are bought in and ignore it Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others

They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system

They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases

Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself

Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary

We got James Madison’s version of government, who described the Senate as a legislative body to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Thus the justice system evolved over time only assessing laws and building its existence on questions of property rights and ownership.

Not saying it’s scandalous or wrong but it’s only concerned with internal consistency, like India.

Look at how the GOP is largely pushing a platform that’s hundreds of years old, with an outcome that resembles the way things were before the New Deal

It’s just old guys advocating for their personal feelings. Exactly what the person from India said :shrug:

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

#260

Post by selimthegrim »

mikeyouse wrote: post #46
runako wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Rig…

RBG herself is well known to be in favor of a different grounding. If Roe is weakened or overturned, let's test that case on its merits.
Post reply on HN