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

51–60 of 258 posts

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

#51

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

ricree wrote: post #47
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that anything not expressly prohibited in the constitution is up to the states to decide. What most people don't get (even in the USA) is that the constitution doesn't grant powers to people. It only restricts the government from acting on the people. People were born with the right to speak freely and defend themselves as they see fit - the government can't change that for example. So the 10th says if it is…

>Commerce clause means that if something moves from state to state, that sure does seem like a Federal matter To clarify (as you no doubt know, but other readers might not), this has been taken by courts to mean that any type of good that is traded between states is fair game for federal involvement, even if the actual product in question never has and never will travel outside of the state, or be bought or sold what…

Yes! Good point. It's remarkable commerce clause passed this many years of scrutiny. It's extremely difficult to think of things it doesn't apply to.

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

#52

Post by koboll »

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.

It would be a wild dereliction of the duty of SCOTUS to let the facts of a particular case influence their judgement on a broader legal question. Many cases get sent back to lower courts without resolving a broader legal question because the facts of a particular case weren't quite perfectly aligned to make it an appropriate vehicle to resolve a broad question. The political gerrymandering cases decided thus far this term are a good example.

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

#53

Post by slowburning »

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…

In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)

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

#54

Post by torstenvl »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #34
dhd415 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago. No. The second amendment was always incorporated "against" (for) the states. McDonald only clarified what was always the reality. That a state can not preempt federal laws with keeping and barring arms for self defense. Notice that last part, the SPECIFIC INTENTION of the case is for self defense. Your…

You are incorrect, Sir. Grandparent is correct. May I recommend that you re-read the link? It says exactly the opposite of what you claim.

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

#55

Post by throwaway76543 »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #34
dhd415 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago. No. The second amendment was always incorporated "against" (for) the states. McDonald only clarified what was always the reality. That a state can not preempt federal laws with keeping and barring arms for self defense. Notice that last part, the SPECIFIC INTENTION of the case is for self defense. Your…

"Your own link makes note that selective incorporation doesn't apply to the bill of rights."

No, it doesn't. In fact, it clearly states the opposite noting that the 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated.

On that page you can even find a table noting when each amendment in the Bill of Rights was incorporated. It quite clearly tells you that the 2nd amendment was incorporated in 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Nothing you said in this comment is correct.

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

#56

Post by jedberg »

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 punishment for double-jeopardy, but it did not address the legality of CF itself.

In this case, they are also not directly deciding on CF. They are deciding on whether the 8th amendment applies to the States based on the 14th amendment. If they decide that it does, then the case goes back to the Indiana Supreme Court, who will have to decide if the fine is excessive, like the lower courts found.

But every other civil forfeiture case will still have to argue in a court whether the forfeiture counts as an excessive fine.

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

#57

Post by forapurpose »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #41
mijoharas wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, could you explain what the 10th amendment is? (The Wikipedia page has some assumed knowledge that I do not have as I'm not American.)

It means that anything not expressly prohibited in the constitution is up to the states to decide. What most people don't get (even in the USA) is that the constitution doesn't grant powers to people. It only restricts the government from acting on the people. People were born with the right to speak freely and defend themselves as they see fit - the government can't change that for example. So the 10th says if it is…

On what is this analysis based? No offense to the parent, but I've learned that analyses of law by non-attorneys, while they can be valuable in regard to principles, are about as accurate as an attorney's analysis of a software project.

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

#58

Post by forapurpose »

Finnucane wrote: post #38
cabaalis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

The Supremacy clause of the constitution means that state law can’t be contrary to the constitution. So if the 8th amendment applies in this case, the state law is overruled.

The article says it's the due process clause (the 14th Amendment) which extends Constitutional law to the states.

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

#60

Post by CobrastanJorji »

cabaalis wrote: post #30
dhd415 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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 you or even imprison you without a warrant, or quarter troops in your house.

Post reply on HN