Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on February 20, 2019, 07:00:40 PM
-
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/696360090/supreme-court-limits-civil-asset-forfeiture-rules-excessive-fines-apply-to-state?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news
This is a key decision on how a state cannot impose disproportionate fines (or asset seizure) for a crime. In the instant case, the defendant had his $ 48K Land Rover seized by the state of Indiana for selling a small amount of heroin. SCOTUS had a frowny face about this.
-
SCOTUS had a unanimous frowny face about this.
-
SCOTUS had a unanimous frowny face about this.
So you know they are serious about it. Here is the decision as written by Justice Ginsberg: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf
-
Slightly better than a sharp stick in the eye for a ruling. But I would much rather see a case go to SCOTUS where the victim of civil forfeiture was never even so much as charged with a crime.
-
It is important to note that this will not stop asset forfeiture. Now you get an opportunity to argue that the seizure was excessive and disproportionate to the alleged crime. So maybe you get your stuff back. Eventually. After spending who knows how much on legal fees.
-
This has been a hot topic issue for me for a while, but the Supreme Court has declared that taking property well in excess of potential fines is a violation.
Basically that, yes, the 8th IS incorporated by the 14th.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/696360090/supreme-court-limits-civil-asset-forfeiture-rules-excessive-fines-apply-to-state
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/supreme-court-rules-against-civil-forfeitures-rbg-timbs.html
A big blow to policing for profit.
-
It is important to note that this will not stop asset forfeiture. Now you get an opportunity to argue that the seizure was excessive and disproportionate to the alleged crime. So maybe you get your stuff back. Eventually. After spending who knows how much on legal fees.
Given how they already target folks most unable or unlikely to fight it in the first place; and how reliant on that income they've become, I'm doubtful of actual impact. Then again, I'm in NY; not like my government thinks laws apply to them. But hey, probably because when the government does wildly criminal acts, at most they are asked to give back the proceeds without any penalties or actual compensation for getting to that point.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/21/696517319/new-york-city-admits-defrauding-fema-out-of-millions-after-superstorm-sandy
-
Sounds like a minor improvement needs to be made. The seizing agency is responsible for the legal fees of the people getting their stuff back.
That is assuming we can't outlaw the practice all together.
-
Merged Duplicate Topics.