Just FYI your freedom in the US can be revoked at anytime WITHOUT reasonable suspicion thanks to Reagan (5150; Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act 1972). This is the same actor whom closed California’s treatment facilities without having a replacement and later defunded all community mental health centers JFK promised, throwing millions of disabled people out into the cold and on the street, ostensibly being “kinder.”
U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
201–210 of 258 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#202Can't wait for the 5-4 decision reaffirming civil forfeiture.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-prohibits-fe...
That seems like a portion of the hole, but probably not the whole hole?
He did what he had the power to do. Getting rid of the whole hole would have required Congress to cooperate, which was a tall order when one party vowed that it was its mission to guarantee his failure.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#204What 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…
Mandatory disclaimer that I think civil forfeiture sucks. While I agree with you personally, I think legally that would be very far from a slam dunk case. The situation in this case seems similar to the one in Bennis v. Michigan, where SCOTUS already ruled that the civil forfeiture did not violate the takings clause of the 5th amendment. So the 5A angle seems like a risky argument. On the other hand, the waters surro…
Good catch.
I just read the opinion in Bennis. The core of it is that the state may take property if the use of the property constitutes a public nuisance. If a ship is used for piracy or drug running, for example, then it can be taken.
In Bennis, there was a car jointly owned by a husband and a wife. The husband used the car with a prostitute. The wife didn't know. The question before the court was if the state's taking of the car violated the wife's 5th amendment rights, because she owned half of it and had nothing to do with the crime. Almost the entirely of the opinion concerned whether an innocent owner could have property taken if the property had been used to commit a crime by someone else. The court held that yes, it could, and that wasn't a violation of the 5th amendment.
Most of these civil forfeiture cases can be distinguished because the property taken usually wasn't used in the commission of a crime. People have had large amounts of cash taken from them even though they did nothing more than run a red light or drive too fast. In that case, the money can hardly been seen as having been an instrument of the crime.
It's unfortunate that in this particular case, the druggie did use his car to transport and to buy and sell drugs. This isn't the best case to challenge civil asset forfeiture generally. Perhaps "excessive fines" is the best they'll be able to do. Although if the court is really enlightened, they'll distinguish between an asset which is primarily used for crime (a crack house or a pirate ship) and one which is used only in passing (like this car).
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#205What 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…
I'm sure that Roscoe Filburn thought his case was a slam dunk, as well. I mean, who in their sane mind, upon reading the Constitution, could conclude that what it means is what SCOTUS said it means in that case?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#206I am appalled at the opinion of Judge Barnes:
“I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have exercised in some of these cases,” Judge Barnes wrote. “Entire family farms are sometimes forfeited based on one family member’s conduct, or exorbitant amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself.”
This sort of intersection between hard biological reality on the one hand (in this case, predictable consequence of highly addictive drugs), and the hard-nosed moralizing of a judge, reminds me of something Robert Sapolsky has been trying to impart about what we should give consideration to when looking for the ultimate sources of culpability when biological factors are involved, and whether or not we ought to see negative social behavior as a crime or a disease. Sapolsky has written a recent book about this topic, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#207Earlier 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…
Disregarding what the law says, the material reality is that American society today largely respects and thinks highly of the US military, and is not as skeptical of federal government's standing armies.
This, by the way, tells you a great deal about how far away the modern American society is from its own founding principles - and especially so among the people who otherwise profess their infatuation with them (and who tend to be more pro-military and pro-police).
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even before that, there was a case where the federal government had limited the amount of wheat a farm could grow (to control prices), and came after a farmer who exceeded those limits for the sake of feeding his own livestock. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the earliest supreme court case where purely personal use counted as "interstate commerce". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Wickard's use was not purely personal. He grew more wheat than he used, and he sold that excess on the interstate market (or, from a different viewpoint: he sold wheat up to the allowable limit and gave the rest to his livestock). This directly impacted the interstate commerce of wheat, because growing his own wheat meant there was less demand for wheat from other farmers. Scaled up to an entire nation, this would ha…
As I recall, the argument in the decision, however, was specifically that self-production for personal consumption affects the market (because you're not buying the product that you're producing).
Following that logic, Congress can regulate breathing, so long as there's a market for air.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#209I am appalled at the opinion of Judge Barnes: “I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have exercised in some of these cases,” Judge Barnes wrote. “Entire family farms are sometimes forfeited based on one family member’s conduct, or exorbitant amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, mu…
...but he's talking about a dealer, not a user?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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). False generally, and specifically false for federal law forfeitures, where the burden is explicitly on the government to prove that the property i…
And? Most civil forfeiture is from small town cops, not the feds. Yea your one type of case is less problematic, but the majority of real life cases are still guilty until proven innocent Edit: additionally, what happens when the government doesn't follow the law? You bring them to court? That's still guilty until proven innocent unless there's a strong IG which is not the case
> And? Most civil forfeiture is from small town cops, not the feds
The significant civil forfeiture crisis has been driven by federal law forfeitures (particularly related to the War on Drugs), executed by local agencies, because federal law authorizes local agencies to conduct forfeitures and allows local agencies to keep (a share of) proceeds of such forfeitures, while most state forfeiture laws dedicate the proceeds of forfeitures to state general funds. This provides a strong incentive for local agencies to use federal law forfeitures as a revenue stream for the agency, an incentive which does not exist for state law forfeitures in most states.