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

191–200 of 258 posts

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

#191

Post by ct520 »

apo wrote: post #73

It boggles the mind to think that forfeiture is alive and well today, some police departments even brag about the state-sponsored hooliganism they're committing, and the practice has never been seriously challenged in the Supreme Court. This looks to be the defense: The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Timbs, on interesting grounds. It said the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to…

I can tell you from experience Fort Wayne Indiana is one of those departments that brag about it.. “LOOKS LIKE WE GETTING NEW TAZERS!!”

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

#192

Post by chasontherobot »

arwineap wrote: post #105
rocqua wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> federal laws ... use funding carrots rather than criminal-punishment sticks There are limits to this, some of which are set out in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). These limits (quoting wikipedia) are: * The spending must promote "the general welfare." * The condition must be unambiguous. * The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." * The condition i…

Do you have a background in law? Reading through this comment thread is very interesting, I just can't help but try to understand how so many geeks are so well versed in case law :)

The law is just a programming language for government, thus a lot of programmers are attracted to it.

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

#193

Post by inteleng »

odonnellryan wrote: post #151
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What point are you trying to make? That Cornell law school is trying to be political here?

Something something east-coast liberal elitism something something corruption.

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

#194

Post by URSpider94 »

scoggs wrote: post #179
RIMR wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And how would that help? Playing policeman’s advocate, maybe you left half of what you just withdrew at home? How would you prove you were carrying the whole amount?

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

#195

Post by URSpider94 »

0xdxdt wrote: post #148
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.

The government is doing a nice business in seized bitcoin, thanks. http://bitcoinist.com/us-government-to-sell-over-2000-seized...

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

#196

Post by s73v3r_ »

harryh wrote: post #83
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.

Civil forfeiture cases are argued before the judiciary branch. The power is not unfettered.

They're usually argued against the actual item being seized, not the owner of the item. Since a pile of money can't really hire an attorney, there's no argument to the contrary, and the state wins.

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

#197

Post by s73v3r_ »

ccleve wrote: post #135
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 es…

Right, but that's an argument for after the crime has been proven. It's not an argument for seizing property just on the thought that one might be involved in crime.

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

#199

Post by sjwright »

jessaustin wrote: post #182
sjwright wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything you said is actually pretty strange. ... The idea that a scummy and a sympathetic defendant will get the same treatment is genuinely weird and not at all an instinctive approach to justice. This is like a topsy-turvy world. The idea that a scummy or sympathetic defendant would not get the same treatment is genuinely weird and not at all an instinctive approach to justice. Equal treatment under the law is…

Charitably, this viewpoint misses a great deal of history. Less charitably, it also misses a great deal of what's actually going on right here right now. Poor defendants plea out. Rich defendants don't get charged, because prosecutors know they can afford to go to trial. Of course I'm not saying that poor people are "scummy", whatever that means. No one in this thread has to say it, because the courts say it every da…

I’m only talking about the Supreme Court.

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

#200

Post by r00fus »

18pfsmt wrote: post #158
techsupporter wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I grew up moving as my father changed jobs, and I continued the practice on my own when I turned 18. I'm at least 1k miles from any family, and I've had to make new friends many times. It's really not that big of a deal for many people. I think most people I know in Colorado were not born here.

Me too, but I'm pretty sure we're in the minority. Most people I've talked to my entire lives did not move nearly as much as I did (I went to a different school for each grade from 3-9).
Post reply on HN