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

171–180 of 258 posts

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

#171

Post by gamblor956 »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #91
gamblor956 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The table is correct. 100% correct. It's maintained by a law school, and is verified by a professor of Constitutional Law at least annually. As a lawyer, I trust the Cornell Legal Information Institute. I have used it in my practice.

You know how the CDC was banned from advocating gun control in 1996 because of the junk studies the Clinton admin pushed for in 1992 as justification for their upcoming gun control legislation? It came out of Harvard and Princeton. Almost all discredited, full data never released, one of the main "researches" still employed at Harvard. Bloomberg just gave Johns Hopkins and Yale money to "study" gun control (with outc…

The LII is literally just an accessible form of the various federal codes, statutes, regulations, and certain administrative rulings. It can be verified against paper copies or against paid services like Westlaw and Nexis.

The LII has been around for more than a decade. The LII is used by progressives, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, the current (Trump) administration and the former (Obama) administration, all with no complaints. It has been used by lawyers and judges on every side of the aisle. If there was any bias, it would have come out by now.

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

#172

Post by ada1981 »

Can someone make an app that handles civil forfeiture appeals automatically?

Input the location and get walked through questions and have the paperwork filed automatically.

You could charge a percentage of the total value being claimed.

Similar to the apps to fight parking tickets.

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

#173

Post by gamblor956 »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #89
gamblor956 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true...the interstate commerce clause may only regulate wholly intrastate commerce if the law regulates interstate commerce and the targeted intrastate transactions would affect the interstate commerce subject to regulation. See Gonzalez v. Raich (permitting the criminalization of marijuana farming of marijuana that could only legally be sold in-state because marijuana as a good could be sold across state…

>if the law regulates interstate commerce and the targeted intrastate transactions would affect the interstate commerce subject to regulation Right, but the issue is that's so laughably wide that it's meaningless. Esp as the internet has made things easier, you can be certain it's legally arguable to "prove" that even a small time seller of some good is measurably impacting big company X.

No, it's not so laughably wise as to be meaningless. For example, the interstate commerce clause cannot regulate service transactions (healthcare, legal, accounting, etc.).

Esp as the internet has made things easier, you can be certain it's legally arguable to "prove" that even a small time seller of some good is measurably impacting big company X.

That's not how it works at all. But what do I know? I've only successfully practiced law for a decade in state and federal courts.

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

#174

Post by AngryData »

asimpletune wrote: post #121

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

If some crack dealer buys a car or house using drug money, instead of just carrying cash, he can still have that illegally paid for goods taken away. Like if some guy buys an escalade with crack money the cops can take the escalade as it was paid with illegal gains. Or with cash if you have a ton of cash that the cash was proceeds from drug deals in the past that can't be proven but they shouldn't be able to keep the drug cash just because they couldn't prove every sale of drugs by the dealer. Like if they catch a dealer with wads of cash, obviously the cash likely was from selling more drugs.

Although obviously cops have gone way to far with seizing shit and very stupidly if the person's criminal charges are dropped (or some times not even filed) they don't automatically get their seized goods back.

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

#175

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

briandear wrote: post #27
balozi wrote: post #17

I'm calling it now: 6-3. Thomas, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in the six. Thomas has made his position clear about this in the past, Roberts sensibilities are often libertarian, and the others are liberals.

However, liberals upheld forfeiture in United States v. Ursery, 1996. The only dissent in that case was Stevens.

I'm not familiar with Ursery and have only skimmed a few sources, but I saw nothing suggesting that the legality of civil forfeiture per se was even disputed in that case. If I read Stevens's dissent correctly, it challenges only the constitutionality of one of the involved criminal cases, arguing that because the previously seized property did not represent proceeds of a crime, the perpetrator had a legitimate property right of which the government had deprived him. Therefore, the forfeiture already served as a punishment for the crime, so double jeopardy precludes a subsequent criminal trial on the same offense.

I'd be interested in knowing if I'm missing something important here.

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

#176

Post by itronitron »

coldseattle wrote: post #124
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Quartering Troops" sounds archaic, but every now and then lawmakers propose it, like forcing private airlines to provide discounted or free arrangements for servicemen traveling. (As opposed to negotiating rates with them, or soliciting competitive bids). These proposals usually don't get very far, but it shows you that the Government still thinks it's OK to _force_ a citizen or private business to give free service…

aren't we already quartering troops with the proportion of taxes that support the DoD?

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

#178

Post by jessaustin »

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.

Did police ever search you, find that cash, and not take it? Congratulations on your privilege. Lots of other people, including those without bank accounts or other means of moving their wealth around, have lost money this way.

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

#179

Post by scoggs »

RIMR wrote: post #42
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…

What's worse is they don't even need a shred of evidence to take your stuff. In some states, having more than $10,000 in cash on your person is automatically considered "evidence of criminal activity". That means that the police, just by seeing that you have more than $10k in cash, can simply seize it and then force you to spend your time and additional money proving that the money didn't come from crime. And, of cou…

I hope, and if this applies to you maybe this will be a wake up call, nobody reading this walks around with lump sums of cash like this without a receipt from the ATM or bank teller. I hope not.

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

#180

Post by jessaustin »

itronitron wrote: post #176
coldseattle wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Quartering Troops" sounds archaic, but every now and then lawmakers propose it, like forcing private airlines to provide discounted or free arrangements for servicemen traveling. (As opposed to negotiating rates with them, or soliciting competitive bids). These proposals usually don't get very far, but it shows you that the Government still thinks it's OK to _force_ a citizen or private business to give free service…

aren't we already quartering troops with the proportion of taxes that support the DoD?

I think the idea is that directly quartering troops is certain to be much more capricious and unequal than paying taxes. Everyone (with some narrow exceptions) is supposed to pay taxes, while only those families who have nice houses in convenient locations (and beautiful teenage daughters!) will have to quarter troops directly.
Post reply on HN