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

131–140 of 258 posts

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

#131

Post by macintux »

394549 wrote: post #31
skissane wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miranda v. Arizona was decided over 50 years ago. How relevant is the behavior of SCOTUS 50 years ago to predicting their present-day behavior? The membership is completely different, and there have been countless other changes in law and American society and culture over that period. (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point, which may well be right, but your example might not be the best example to demonstra…

> Miranda v. Arizona was decided over 50 years ago. How relevant is the behavior of SCOTUS 50 years ago to predicting their present-day behavior? The membership is completely different, and there have been countless other changes in law and American society and culture over that period. Because the Supreme Court is an institution with an institutional culture. Furthermore, its members obsessively study it's past deci…

There are some disturbing indications that the more conservative current members feel less constrained by traditions and precedent. I don’t have the quotes handy but they were pretty explicit.

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

#132

Post by jpindar »

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…

Yes, they can seize houses, even when the accused doesn't own the house but just lives there, and the owner was not aware of any crime taking place.

http://ij.org/action-post/how-a-philadelphia-family-lost-the...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/01/15/g...

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

#134

Post by djrogers »

smrtinsert wrote: post #118
arwineap wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think we have enough data to say it’s ‘very typically seized’ - certainly it is at times, and in egregious and outrageous fashion, but I don’t think ‘very typically’ is accurate.

I personally have on many occasions had well in excess of 10,000 on my person and have never had it seized.

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

#135

Post by ccleve »

asimpletune wrote: post #121

Can someone please argue the position of the side in favor of civil forfeiture?

I do not agree with this argument, but it goes like this:

If a wealthy drug dealer has cars, boats, houses and whatnot that are used in the course of committing crimes, the government should be able to seize them to stop them from continuing to be used for this purpose. If a drug dealer has a large amount of cash earned from the sale of drugs, he should not be able to use his ill-gotten gains to pay for lawyers or escape or anything else. Also, the seizures help local law enforcement defray the cost of catching the criminal, a cost they would not have had to incur had he not been a criminal.

Again, I think these are terrible arguments, but there you are.

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

#136

Post by lostcolony »

djrogers wrote: post #134
smrtinsert wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dont. Excessive free cash is very typically seized.

I don’t think we have enough data to say it’s ‘very typically seized’ - certainly it is at times, and in egregious and outrageous fashion, but I don’t think ‘very typically’ is accurate. I personally have on many occasions had well in excess of 10,000 on my person and have never had it seized.

And you were pulled over, and it was discovered?

I mean, even if you were, that constitutes X data points, which is hardly representative.

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

#137

Post by bnolsen »

downandout wrote: post #104
slowburning wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)

Interesting article about a guy who was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison for building hidden compartments for customers of his car stereo shop: https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/

as opposed to people actually using those compartments in an illegal fashion. Out of control government...

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

#138

Post by bnolsen »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #60
cabaalis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't for the life of me understand why the 10th amendment does not have a more prominent place in the American political system than it does. It is because government would be hamstrung if they respected it? It would seem to the layman that is the entire reason it exists!

Technically you're right. The 10th amendment has been largely neutered by selective incorporation, a very broad reading of the commerce clause, and other decisions. That said, the world in which the 10th amendment is very strong and the fourteenth is weak is much worse for civil rights. Suddenly the states can declare official support for Christianity, ban dissenting speech, shut down newspapers they dislike, search…

It cuts both ways. One central government squishing civil rights or 50 states each having to squish civil rights? I do tend to agree to the supremacy of the bill of rights which is supposed to be just a restatement of natural rights and is a hands off to government in general.

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

#140

Post by greenleafjacob »

unholiness wrote: post #110
jedberg wrote: post #56

What I've learned recently is that most people only read headlines when it comes to Supreme Court cases, and the headlines are written to be intentionally misleading. Most Supreme Court cases have a lot of nuance to them that most people miss. For example, in this thread, people keep saying that United States v. Ursery upheld Civil Forfeiture, but it did no such thing. The case was about whether CF is a criminal puni…

You seem to have a more accurate perspective on this case than most of the comments. Thank you for posting. But I'm still confused on one point: It seems like the supreme court has already ruled that the 8th Amendment applies to the states in Roper v. Simmons[0], Robinson v. California [1], and others. To me this pretty directly means that a state law dictating a cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. So i…

You can track the progress of the case through SCOTUSBlog [1] with associated filings like the writ of certiorari [2]. The precise question presented in this case is:

> Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment

[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-indiana/

[2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180...

Post reply on HN