Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 258 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#11

Post by kevin_b_er »

defen wrote: post #8

I think I understand the logic of civil forfeiture, but what is the justification for seizing a $40,000 vehicle when the state has only proven (according to the article) that he sold about $225 worth of drugs? It says he plead guilty to one charge - was the other for a significantly larger amount, that he was perhaps convicted of? Based on the info presented in the article it would seem difficult to argue that he acq…

The justification is the police department gets to sell the vehicle and use the cash. And sometimes they can use that for parties. Providing police with more toys is the justification for the theft of property.

1. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-bought-with...

2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/...

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#12

Post by downandout »

archon wrote: post #3

I'm worried that because this is a case in which the defendant actually did deal drugs, the court will rule in favor of the civil forfeiture laws and the SC case will then be used as a precedent to justify broader use of civil forfeiture. But IANAL, so maybe the danger isn't as big as I fear.

You're correct that this isn't really the type of case that will set a precedent for the most troublesome applications of civil forfeiture. I wish cases like these [1] would reach the Supreme Court. In one of those cases, a man that had just won $50,000 in cash from a casino had it seized, even though he wasn't cited for a traffic offense or charged with any crime. It would be nice if legislators simply outlawed the practice, but the political will doesn't exist. A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/...

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#13

Post by Analemma_ »

archon wrote: post #3

I'm worried that because this is a case in which the defendant actually did deal drugs, the court will rule in favor of the civil forfeiture laws and the SC case will then be used as a precedent to justify broader use of civil forfeiture. But IANAL, so maybe the danger isn't as big as I fear.

Whatever its other faults, SCOTUS is usually pretty good about not letting crummy defendants blind them to setting good precedent. For example, Miranda warnings came about when they threw out the conviction of a man who had almost certainly kidnapped and raped a teenager.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#14

Post by Navarr »

archon wrote: post #3

I'm worried that because this is a case in which the defendant actually did deal drugs, the court will rule in favor of the civil forfeiture laws and the SC case will then be used as a precedent to justify broader use of civil forfeiture. But IANAL, so maybe the danger isn't as big as I fear.

Considering the lower courts all agreed that the forfeiture was excessive, I'm not inclined to worry too much about that.

It appears to be going to the supreme court b/c the Indiana Supreme Court said that the amendment regarding excessive fines doesn't apply to the states.

So the real question being asked to the SC in this case is "Must states abide by the 8th amendment?"

Since they must 1st, 2nd, and others - I don't see why they would not be required to do so.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#15

Post by dhd415 »

Navarr wrote: post #14
archon wrote: post #3

I'm worried that because this is a case in which the defendant actually did deal drugs, the court will rule in favor of the civil forfeiture laws and the SC case will then be used as a precedent to justify broader use of civil forfeiture. But IANAL, so maybe the danger isn't as big as I fear.

Considering the lower courts all agreed that the forfeiture was excessive, I'm not inclined to worry too much about that. It appears to be going to the supreme court b/c the Indiana Supreme Court said that the amendment regarding excessive fines doesn't apply to the states. So the real question being asked to the SC in this case is "Must states abide by the 8th amendment?" Since they must 1st, 2nd, and others - I don…

It's because of selective incorporation. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine). For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#16

Post by s73v3r_ »

downandout wrote: post #12
archon wrote: post #3

I'm worried that because this is a case in which the defendant actually did deal drugs, the court will rule in favor of the civil forfeiture laws and the SC case will then be used as a precedent to justify broader use of civil forfeiture. But IANAL, so maybe the danger isn't as big as I fear.

You're correct that this isn't really the type of case that will set a precedent for the most troublesome applications of civil forfeiture. I wish cases like these [1] would reach the Supreme Court. In one of those cases, a man that had just won $50,000 in cash from a casino had it seized, even though he wasn't cited for a traffic offense or charged with any crime. It would be nice if legislators simply outlawed the…

Political will is getting there. A couple of states have banned the practice, and more are removing the incentive that police departments have to do it(that the funds go to the police).

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#18

Post by smsm42 »

docker_up wrote: post #6

The fact that this monstrosity of justice has continued, even under presidents such as Obama, make me so angry and upset. It's exactly what happens when you let the police do whatever they want, without someone to curtail their behavior. Unfettered power equals unfettered corruption, and the fact this keeps occurring in 2018 is astounding and upsetting.

Obama never showed any desire to curtail executive powers. In fact, he was championing exactly the opposite approach - that executive has the power to produce new regulatory legislation and ignore existing legislation they don't like, as soon as they perceive Congress does not do what they want it to do. No wonder Obama did nothing for civil forfeiture reform - that would be the exact opposite of his policy of infinite executive powers. His administration was not just ignoring forfeiture abuse - it was actively encouraging it, e.g. by means of infamous "equitable sharing" program, that allows the law enforcement to directly profit from seized property: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-do...

Saying forfeiture abuse proliferated "even under Obama" is like saying even under Rod Blagojevich corruption proliferated in Illinois. Not exactly a surprise.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#19

Post by logfromblammo »

defen wrote: post #8

I think I understand the logic of civil forfeiture, but what is the justification for seizing a $40,000 vehicle when the state has only proven (according to the article) that he sold about $225 worth of drugs? It says he plead guilty to one charge - was the other for a significantly larger amount, that he was perhaps convicted of? Based on the info presented in the article it would seem difficult to argue that he acq…

Article states that both the Land Rover and the drugs were purchased using the payout from a life insurance policy. It is unclear whether any of the drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price.

As I recall, the whole concept of civil asset forfeiture was originally to discourage crime by removing the profit from criminal activity when the property was at hand, but the owner was outside the jurisdiction or otherwise unreachable. The long history of forfeiture is mostly seizing the property because the actual criminal was untouchable.

It has since morphed into cops acting as highwaymen to fund their activities beyond the bounds of their regular budget. In this case, the alleged criminal was actually charged, in custody, given due process criminally, and fined. The cops, not satisfied with the fines already levied, stole his car, too.

In my non-lawyerly opinion, if the Supreme Court would like for forfeiture to continue largely unchanged, they should reverse and return the guy's car, and cite so many case specifics that this would be practically useless as precedent. If they confirm, there is a chance that public backlash will eliminate forfeiture through legislatures. If they reverse on principles rather than specifics, that would set precedent easily usable by everyone better respected than a heroin dealer. I hope for the latter, but I don't think the current court has the right makeup to tear the filthy entrails out of forfeiture.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#20

Post by briandear »

Meekro wrote: post #5

It would be great to see the Supreme Court take up one of the more egregious cases involving huge cash seizures from people with no criminal record, and where there is no evidence that a crime took place. Unfortunately, most of those are eventually settled by the government. In this case there is little doubt that the target was dealing drugs, prompting one judge to write that "one who deals heroin, and there is no d…

Even if they have a criminal record, that isn’t probable cause.
Post reply on HN