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

361–370 of 457 posts

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

#361

Post by gamblor956 »

gowld wrote: post #145
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…

This case was about criminal forfeiture, not civil forfeiture. The aggrieved was convicted of crime, and the forfeiture was a fine for that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture

This case was actually about civil forfeiture, not criminal forfeiture.

If it had been criminal forfeiture, they would have had to show the SUV was purchased using drug money proceeds. Instead, they pursued the civil forfeiture path because it has a lower standard of evidence (more likely than not rather that beyond a reasonable doubt). See page 1 of the opinion, which explicitly states the case is about civil forfeiture...https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf)

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

#362

Post by odonnellryan »

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.

Selective enforcement is absolutely fine.

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

#363

Post by [deleted] »

orblivion wrote: post #197
gowld wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case was about criminal forfeiture, not civil forfeiture. The aggrieved was convicted of crime, and the forfeiture was a fine for that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture

Hmm, seems like the 8th amendment doesn't apply to civil forfeiture at all, and this ruling would do nothing for it. Civil I guess sounds like a 4th amendment case. Is that about right? EDIT: Also you should tell the New York Times. "Criminal forfeiture" does not appear in the article, though "civil forfeiture" does.

[deleted]

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

#364

Post by chidg »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #263
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.

> showed some bleeding heart As if the court being overly sentimental would be the only reason to overturn confiscations of property of this kind?

It seems likely the person you are replying to has english as a non-first language and may be using this phrase incorrectly.

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

#365

Post by wallace_f »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #334
xxpor wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature I hate this meme. This is explicitly not true in the American legal system, as well as similar systems evolved from the British one. Case law is just as much part of the law as statutes are. This is the fundamental difference between common law systems and civil law systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Common_law_legal_sy...

It is not a meme. It is the very definition of American courts. Brits dont even have a constitution and have a very different system from that of USA. Other than appearance there is no similarity between British and American courts. I remember a famous case where a British judge refused to punish a Muslim man who use to beat his wife claiming, that is how the man is cultured and beating wife is part of his religion.…

Underneath the parent comment -- which linked a Wikipedia article with some educational material on case law vs statutory law vs common law etc -- there are a number of comments like this which just show users didn't even bother to read a Wikipedia page, but were happy to tell the world how it works in their own minds.

Maybe there is some important lesson about people here. I think today people think of themselves as above those of the past who took intellectual shortcuts to understanding the world and came to preposterous models of reality. But then you can see just how intellectually lazy people are still today, yet at the same time how hard it is to convince them.

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

#366

Post by cryptonector »

craftyguy wrote: post #342
milesvp wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes actually. The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature. Also by limiting their ruling to the narrowest ruling they can, they keep decisions as local as possible. Courts handle exceptional circumstances, and it’s important they not rule too broadly, else there can be huge overarching unintended side effects of their ruling. The parallel in programming would be some god class that handles every e…

> The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature. They set the interpretation of the law, which could literally go any which way, and is not reversible without further legislative action to repeal/amend the law. So in a way, they most definitely set law by solidifying its 'meaning'.

And then there's common law, which is essentially judge-made law.

Case law is very much law. Judges are not supposed to invent law from whole cloth, sure, but they are supposed to make law in a very specific and important sense: by interpreting law (including constitutional law) when its meaning isn't clear. The fact that some judges abuse this to set policy does not mean that judges shouldn't make law -- it only means that some judges don't have the right stuff to be judges. But judge-made law is a thing, and a real and legitimate thing. Downvoting this won't make it not so. Please acquaint yourselves with English and American jurisprudence, law, and constitutions.

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

#367

Post by m3kw9 »

It took this case to set a precedent, I’m sure there were other more high crime to value ratio forfeitures. I’m glad this is in place because it was a tactic used by low life’s to take someone’s house by slapping on a small criminal offense on someone

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

#368

Post by BurningFrog »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #152
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…

Unrelated question, but who is paying for all these lawyers? Timbs himself out of his pocket?

Institute for Justice: https://ij.org/about-us/

You can help out too: https://ij.org/support/give-now

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

#369

Post by wallace_f »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #314
int_19h wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with SCOTUS is its reputation, which is dragged down by basically everything else in our politics. When politicians (on both sides of the aisle) openly talk about "liberal judges" and "conservative judges", and promise to appoint the kind that will rule the way they and their constituents want (as opposed to ruling according to what the law says) - and then those same people actually nominate or confirm a…

It's such a tragedy how much the actions of the SC are generalized and sound-bited by politicians and the media. If you go out and read the arguments they all give they are really quite elegant, especially when compared with the sheer stupidity of some of the debates that take place a block over

Yea... But I think this comment puts them in better light than perhaps is deserved. There are arguments SCOTUS are not defenders of the constitution. Look at Clarence Thomas's dissent on Gonzalez vs Raich, where somehow SCOTUS defended the Fed's oppressing someone for growing their own medical marijuana... In a state with legal medical marijuana. There is no constitutional basis for that. Using the Commerce Clause is laughable, at best. Like Thomas said, if the government can persecute you for growing a plant for your own consumption, inside your own home, to treat your own ailments, then they can persecute you for anything. I mean, what the fuck is that ruling even, honestly?

In other words, I think you are right that they are mostly-removed from the liberal vs conservative circus... But they are not really removed from those anti-constitutional and anti-liberty politics which both those parties defend.

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

#370

Post by Fellshard »

aidenn0 wrote: post #349
Fellshard wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you claiming that the legislature can compel the executive to violate the constitution? I'm pretty sure that's not right.

You've got a fair point. I don't know if there's a process for the executive to submit such a passed law to the judicial in the first place, before it takes effect.
Post reply on HN