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

111–120 of 258 posts

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

#111

Post by lovich »

dragonwriter wrote: post #96
Someone1234 wrote: post #37

Civil Forfeiture is essentially "guilty until proven innocent." And I don't mean that hyperbolically, I mean literally if the state takes property or cash under Civil Forfeiture you have to prove your property innocent to get it returned (via expensive civil litigation). That means that they can seize property or cash under a certain value with near impunity because the cost of recovering it is greater than the cost…

> Civil Forfeiture is essentially "guilty until proven innocent." And I don't mean that hyperbolically, I mean literally if the state takes property or cash under Civil Forfeiture you have to prove your property innocent to get it returned (via expensive civil litigation). False generally, and specifically false for federal law forfeitures, where the burden is explicitly on the government to prove that the property i…

And? Most civil forfeiture is from small town cops, not the feds. Yea your one type of case is less problematic, but the majority of real life cases are still guilty until proven innocent

Edit: additionally, what happens when the government doesn't follow the law? You bring them to court? That's still guilty until proven innocent unless there's a strong IG which is not the case

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

#113

Post by tathougies »

rossdavidh wrote: post #45
tbirrell wrote: post #2

Unfortunately, in the past, the SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture cases. But since Justice Thomas has spoken against it, I am cautiously optimistic that this might be the time that they rule in favor of the citizen. Civil asset forfeiture has gotten way out of hand. We really need some sort of precedent to start curbing the flagrant abuse we are seeing all over the country.

My thoughts exactly. Thomas is, clearly, more on the law-and-order side of the current court, and his opinion (or the part of it quoted in this article anyway) sounded pretty negative on the practice, at least as it currently exists. It doesn't seem like he would have written in favor of taking the case if he wanted to stay with the status quo. But, I am not a lawyer.

To be fair, civil forfeiture is against the law, so being on the law-and-order side is a good thing. Law-and-order also means applying law and order to the government.

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

#114

Post by torstenvl »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #76
amarkov wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would Heller vs. DC have incorporated anything? DC is a federal district; there were no states involved in that case.

As I recall, Heller v. DC established the precedent that the RKBA is an individual right, while McDonald v. Chicago established that the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendemnt’s “Due Process” clause.

That is correct.

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

#115

Post by techsupporter »

r00fus wrote: post #106
maehwasu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the margin, people would begin moving to different states. The current system has some pros (which you enumerate), but also some massive cons in the form of high exit costs, since you're exiting the entire federal apparatus rather than the government of a single state.

> At the margin, people would begin moving to different states. "They can simply move away" is a fantasy solution. 99% people would/could not move until/unless it became a crisis situation. Sure, you could move, but what about your infirm parents? The costs are already high for between-states moves.

Completely agreed. The argument I heard made before is "if people can just move, why do gay people live in [state with no civil protections for gay rights]?" It's an easy one to answer. Family, job, social connections, money; those are just a few. Then comes the question of how free should each state be or not be? What if you are born, for example, both gay and a native Texan[0]? Should Texas have the right to "force" you out of where you were born and bred simply because a majority of its legislature detests gay people?

0 - The choice of Texas was deliberate because I am a native Texan so I'm not "picking on" any state other than "my own."

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

#117

Post by coldseattle »

Someone1234 wrote: post #37

Civil Forfeiture is essentially "guilty until proven innocent." And I don't mean that hyperbolically, I mean literally if the state takes property or cash under Civil Forfeiture you have to prove your property innocent to get it returned (via expensive civil litigation). That means that they can seize property or cash under a certain value with near impunity because the cost of recovering it is greater than the cost…

Maybe so, but did you read the article? This is a person who the Government decided to do a forfeiture after a conviction. I'm glad the SCOTUS is looking at this because it seems to be adding additional penalties after a conviction. However, in the past additional penalties implemented after a conviction (like sex offender registries) have been upheld.

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

#118

Post by smrtinsert »

arwineap wrote: post #99
VectorLock wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which states?

OH and CA both have laws on the books against creating (hidden compartment) or operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment if it's intended for something illegal. Drugs and guns is the common justification, but I wonder what would happen if you had say 15k in cash in a compartment.

Dont. Excessive free cash is very typically seized.

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

#119

Post by larkeith »

defen wrote: post #68
logfromblammo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 juri…

> 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. Money is fungible, so I would be sympathetic to an argument that claimed he had made in the vicinity of $40k from selling drugs (which could not be confiscated for whatever reason, maybe he spent it al…

By my limited understanding, I believe that they could, as there is no limit akin to maximum fines with regards to civil forfeiture - as in this case, where the maximum of $10k was circumvented. Moreover, it does not require proof of guilt or a conviction, ripening its possibility for abuse.

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

#120

Post by torstenvl »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #87
LyndsySimon wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I recall, Heller v. DC established the precedent that the RKBA is an individual right, while McDonald v. Chicago established that the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendemnt’s “Due Process” clause.

>Heller v. DC established the precedent that the RKBA is an individual right Yes. Well, it always an individual right 250 years of clear examples in texts, but a lot of people tried "the militia argument" which was funny because "a well regulated militia" was immediately followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The idea was that antigun people claimed the militia was an offi…

That is not a correct summary of the cases. Here is the final paragraph from the majority opinion in McDonald:

"In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States.... We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. It is so ordered."

Post reply on HN