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

261–270 of 457 posts

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

#261

Post by sbuttgereit »

dragonwriter wrote: post #246
sbuttgereit wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This specific case was taken and argued by the Institute for Justice ( https://ij.org ), a civil liberties legal charity, that has a goal of addressing exactly this problem. The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of "the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall. The rationale was you had drug dealer types that were successfully evading prosecution on the tougher criminal standards of pro…

> The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of "the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall. No, they were in admiralty/customs law and predate the US, but came along with the body of law the US kept at it's founding. There was some new activity around Prohibition. Then big activity starting in 1970 around the drug war. (That's for federal civil forfeiture, while state level civil forfeitu…

Fair enough.

The big push in my lifetime was the big push around drugs. My family was involved in politics in the early 80's (I was fairly young at the time). I recall a lot of "get tough" political talk around that time and some touting establishment/expansion of civil forfeiture for these purposes.

In truth, while understanding the history is important, I think that is ultimately secondary to what needs to be done with it now. It's a backdoor to punitive recourse that bypasses legitimate interests of criminality and due process. It's an abomination.

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

#262

Post by dclowd9901 »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #245
dragonwriter wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. Of which, by your own argument, anyone can become either; there is either more of a filter than you’d like to pretend on the political branches, or less than you’d like to pretend on the judiciary.

>> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. > No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. You're kinda both right. The legal mechanism says that "a lifetime of respect" isn't necessary, but the norms that have evolved around its use say otherwise. Recent history demonstrates (in the extreme) that norms aren't inviolable, but I think the ones aro…

Convention has proven, especially recently, not to be a great thing on which to stand the propriety of a nation.

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

#263

Post by ErikVandeWater »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #193
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…

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

> showed some bleeding heart

As if the court being overly sentimental would be the only reason to overturn confiscations of property of this kind?

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

#264

Post by dclowd9901 »

wtf_is_up wrote: post #253
discordance wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

*alleged

No, you're right: highly respected and professionally stable women often go out of their way to drag themselves and their reputations through the mud to have no effect on the nomination and subsequent appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. That makes perfect sense.

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

#265

Post by Fellshard »

StillBored wrote: post #209
Fellshard wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't /seem/ right - executive can /veto/ a law before it is passed, but I don't believe they are given the ability to not enforce that law once it's been passed. That is effectively creating law, and is reaching into the legislative branch, still.

But that is the way it works, take the marijuana legalization state laws. Technically, its still against federal law, but the feds have basically agreed not to prosecute growers/distributors/users in those states. It was actually a giant question when trump came into office whether he would start arresting people working/running the legal pot shops in Colorado/etc. So, there are a lot of other cases, where statutes a…

Correct. There's a difference between what theoretically should be, and what we actually see happening, and what is enforced. The legislative branch seems happy to abdicate /its/ role to the administrative in the states when it finds it convenient to do so.

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

#266

Post by JohnFen »

sathackr wrote: post #205
KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

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.

> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

No, it really doesn't. It takes backing from powerful politicians and/or lobbyists. Respect doesn't enter into it.

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

#267

Post by dclowd9901 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #223
da_chicken wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is it, yes.

For reference, in forma pauperis means "in the shape of a poor man"; pockets aren't mentioned. As far as I'm aware, the Romans didn't have pockets and so there would be no way to express the concept in Latin.

> As far as I'm aware, the Romans didn't have pockets and so there would be no way to express the concept in Latin.

I know this is probably not meant to be funny, but for whatever reason, in reading it, I couldn't help but laugh.

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

#268

Post by dclowd9901 »

manicdee wrote: post #243
writepub wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

This is why evil will always win, because good is dumb. Or more precisely, evil people will happily violate entire tranches of law while the good people are stuck prosecuting one case at a time, painfully establishing precedent by precedent, and in the meantime the world has moved on.

Blame it on police and military fetishization. At the end of the day, if you resist authority trying to take your shit illegally, it will come to blows. If you choose to defend yourself against them, you are now very much on the wrong side of the law.

It has to be less illegal to defend yourself from authority if you feel you're in danger.

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

#269

Post by JohnFen »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #193
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…

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

Now if we could only do something about the police stealing stuff from people who aren't even accused of breaking the law.

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

#270

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Cyclone_ wrote: post #230
jakelazaroff wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Perhaps because it's a citizen who was able to afford the expensive car by profiting off of something illegal?

He didn't. He afforded the expensive car by his father dying. (That is, he used the life insurance proceeds to buy the car.)
Post reply on HN