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

141–150 of 258 posts

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

#141

Post by UncleEntity »

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…

If they just drop the case or the person wins in the lower courts and gets their money back then it will never get to the Supreme Court, they have to fight to keep the money (which they don't if it's obvious they'll lose) in order for it to reach the higher levels.

I've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the property itself so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture.

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

#142

Post by djrogers »

eric_h wrote: post #26
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…

> It is unclear whether any of the drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price. The number one reason for addicts to get into the business of selling drugs is to support their own habit - you can only do that if you turn a profit, even if you put that profit right back into buying drugs for yourself.

It’s not a given that an oddity would be capable of running a successful dealing business. After all, they’ve already broken the #1 rule of dealing - don’t get high on your own supply...

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

#144

Post by ccleve »

What bothers me about the article is that they say that the basis of the claim is the 8th Amendment ("excessive fines"). I hope that is not the only argument the lawyers made.

The problem with relying on the 8th alone is that the word "excessive" is imprecise, and there's good reason for the Supreme Court to defer to local legislatures to define what it means, except in extreme cases. Deciding criminal penalties are normally within the powers of the state.

I think the more important amendment is the 5th: ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."). This "takings" clause is what civil forfeiture is all about.

The 5th Amendment has been fully incorporated, and is binding on the states: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

In cases where there is no rational connection to a crime (and there are many such cases), the taking can in no way be construed as a fine.

If you look at the 5th and the 8th together to try to divine the intent of the founders, it's clear that they were trying to limit government overreach of exactly this kind. This case should be a slam dunk.

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

#145

Post by topmonk »

lostcolony wrote: post #136
djrogers wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're asking him to prove a negative. The onus should be on you.

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

#146

Post by UncleEntity »

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…

It will be interesting how they determine if the fines were excessive in all the cases where there were never any charges filed and the government simply seized property under the presumption of guilt.

To my untrained eye a $27,000 fine for failing to properly signal a lane change is a little bit on the excessive side.

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

#147

Post by jmalicki »

gamblor956 wrote: post #90
docker_up wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think a professor in Constitutional Law would be eager to plug a whole that the police were taking advantage of, namely suing the money instead of suing the person. Yet all there was was deafening silence. So disappointing when people don't see things like this.

Obama eventually did plug the hole... It wasn't that big of an issue until after the recession (i.e., during his second term), so it simply wasn't on his radar while he dealt with more pressing issues. Moreover, civil forfeiture is allowed under federal law under very broad terms. It took quite a bit of time after it became an issue to draft a policy that would allow it to continue but end the excesses. Obama couldn'…

"Obama eventually did plug the hole..." citation?

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

#148

Post by 0xdxdt »

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…

Incorrect application of civil forfeiture laws is one very good reason to have a digital currency. I'm not justifying its use for any illicit purposes but its pretty hard for a cryptocurrency to be seized during a traffic stop.

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

#149

Post by sjwright »

shawn wrote: post #22
Analemma_ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This has always fascinated me. It's very strange to think about the fact that society works this way, and that it has to.

It doesn't seem strange at all. It's not the Supreme Court's fault that the defendant or plaintiff in any particular case are scummy or sympathetic, nobodies or famous, weak or powerful. They are aware that their decisions will affect many more people.

They need to create law which caters for the for the wrongly accused as much as it does the rightly accused.

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

#150

Post by mannykannot »

topmonk wrote: post #145
lostcolony wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you were pulled over, and it was discovered? I mean, even if you were, that constitutes X data points, which is hardly representative.

You're asking him to prove a negative. The onus should be on you.

Not at all - one can very reasonably assume that 'very frequently' means after it has been discovered during a traffic stop, in which case it is valid to ask how often djrogers has been in that situation.
Post reply on HN