U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by foobarbazetc » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:50 PM UTC

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.

States rights...

Only so much the Feds can do in matters of local and state level policing.

That’s why you need the SC to rule on stuff.

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

#22

Post by shawn » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:50 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #13

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.

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.

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

#23

Post by amyjess » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

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.

IANAL either, but the Supreme Court generally prefers to set very narrow precedents.

It's possible they'll rule that civil forfeiture was acceptable in this one specific case, and they'll go out of their way to make it clear that their ruling only applies to this specific case.

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

#24

Post by eric_h » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

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.

> SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture cases

Has SCOTUS ruled on an asset forfeiture case before?

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

#25

Post by code_duck » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

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's the same thing that puzzles some people about the ACLU.

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

#26

Post by eric_h » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:54 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #19

defen wrote: post #8

I think I understand the logic of civil forfeiture, but what is the justification for seizing a $40,000 vehicle when the state has only proven (according to the article) that he sold about $225 worth of drugs? It says he plead guilty to one charge - was the other for a significantly larger amount, that he was perhaps convicted of? Based on the info presented in the article it would seem difficult to argue that he acq…

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.

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

#27

Post by briandear » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:58 PM UTC

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.

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

#28

Post by briandear » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:58 PM UTC

eric_h wrote: post #24

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.

> SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture cases Has SCOTUS ruled on an asset forfeiture case before?

United States v. Ursery, No. 95-345

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

#29

Post by skissane » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:59 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #13

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.

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.

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 demonstrate it.)

(And especially considering that the present-day SCOTUS has been accused of repeatedly eroding Miranda v. Arizona, see especially Berghuis v. Thompkins in 2010.)

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

#30

Post by cabaalis » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

dhd415 wrote: post #15

Navarr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the lower courts all agreed that the forfeiture was excessive, I'm not inclined to worry too much about that. It appears to be going to the supreme court b/c the Indiana Supreme Court said that the amendment regarding excessive fines doesn't apply to the states. So the real question being asked to the SC in this case is "Must states abide by the 8th amendment?" Since they must 1st, 2nd, and others - I don…

It's because of selective incorporation. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine ). For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

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!