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

61–70 of 258 posts

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

#61

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

forapurpose wrote: post #57
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…

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.

Dude. I wrote an ELI5 for a non-American to get the idea of what 10A and some factors around it. Not everything needs an in depth dissertation.

Feel free to reply to him with your expert analysis that contradicts my simple overview.

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

#62

Post by fredgrott »

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…

update, its now less than $5,000 and greater than $2,999...ever wonder why the debit/cc cards for poor can only have cash loaded on the card less than $2,999?

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

#63

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

torstenvl wrote: post #54
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Someone at Cornell wrote that 2A was incorporated then, but that's ridiculous as if ANYTHING it would have been incorporated federally during 2008's Heller vs DC. If someone attaches the name of a university to something do you automatically take it as fact?

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

#64

Post by ricree »

jdmichal wrote: post #48
ricree wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the 10th provides little that is particularly concrete, and because the prevailing interpretation of other clauses has been fairly broad. That is to say, by and large the federal government has been acting withing the powers granted by the constitution, but at the moment those powers are held to be quite broad. Interstate commerce clause, in particular, means that the government can do quite a bit to regulate…

Interstate commerce has been interpreted very broadly... So broadly that consuming things you grew yourself is under subject of interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

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

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

#65

Post by asdsa5325 »

GabrielBen wrote: post #32
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.

Wouldn't liberals be pro-forfeiture?

Why do you say that?

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

#66

Post by Navarr »

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.

Thanks for this link! I'm learning a lot that I never really even knew to know about.

It's a mess. It's probably the best mess they could put together - but it's still a mess.

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

#67

Post by rconti »

Judges Barnes' Appeals court dissent is perplexing:

> “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.”

---

He's, of course, well aware that the Land Rover is worth far more than the maximum fine was for the crime, so that's not what he meant by "the legal consequences to which he exposes himself". The only thing I can figure that he means is basically "tough luck, forfeiture exists on the books, you've exposed yourself to it, that's your bad." But saying "the law allows it" is hardly helpful when the issue at hand is (apparently) whether or not the law is constitutional. The only thing I can think is he felt his opinion was on the narrow facts of the case and not the broader constitutionality, or that case law had already settled this.

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

#68

Post by defen »

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…

> 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.

Money is fungible, so I would be sympathetic to an argument that claimed he had made in the vicinity of $40k from selling drugs (which could not be confiscated for whatever reason, maybe he spent it all on drugs for his own use or something) and so it was justified to seize his car.

But from the way it's described, I don't see why the state doesn't think it can justify confiscating an arbitrarily large amount of property from a person who has committed an arbitrarily small drug crime. e.g. if this guy owned a $400,000 house and sold $20 worth of drugs out of it, can they take his house?

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

#69

Post by [deleted] »

gamblor956 wrote: post #49
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 powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Generally, after ratification the 10th Amendment was treated as a truism: essentially a useless amendment that simply confirmed the federal system of government. The words of the man who drafted the amendment, and who opposed it's inclusion: I find, from l…

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by amarkov »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #63
torstenvl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone at Cornell wrote that 2A was incorporated then, but that's ridiculous as if ANYTHING it would have been incorporated federally during 2008's Heller vs DC. If someone attaches the name of a university to something do you automatically take it as fact?

How would Heller vs. DC have incorporated anything? DC is a federal district; there were no states involved in that case.
Post reply on HN