An interesting new SCOTUS decision

[Hawkmoon]

The Supreme Court has just ruled in a potentially significant 4th Amendment case that also peripherally involved firearms. The case originated in Rhode Island; the name of the case is Caniglia v. Strom, et al.

The back story is that a man had an argument with his wife. She left the house and spent the night elsewhere, and in the morning she called the cops and asked for a welfare check because she was concerned that her husband might be suicidal. When the cops got there the guy did not appear to be suicidal but they persuaded him to go to a mental health clinic to be checked out.

While he was doing that, the cops lied to the wife and told her that her husband had given his permission for them to take his firearms. On the basis of that lie, the wife allowed them to enter the house and take two handguns. The guy was cleared by the mental health clinic, but the police refused to return his guns, so he sued. Two lower courts ruled against him, and it eventually made it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled -- by a 9-0 vote -- that the police did NOT have a right to enter the home or to seize the man's property.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

[Ben]

Good. Even if they "had the right" to enter his property, whether through permission or otherwise, the minute it was shown that he had no mental issues, the guns should have gone back.

Other than the RICO laws and Ferraris and whatnot, are there any other instances besides guns where stuff taken by the cops is routinely not returned after a person is found innocent/cleared of something?

[Brad Johnson]

Seems the movement to curb illegal search and seizure is really getting some legs. Mike Lehto (Lehto's Law, YouTube) is pounding the hell out of it and the associated Civil Asset Forfeiture issues. I've seen several other high-profile rants against it, some from lawmakers with enough clout or sheer chutzpah to get things done.

SCOTUS has ruled on it, at least tangentially, but didn't really put the nail in the coffin. I seem to remember that one recent state supreme court directly ruled that CAF is no-no land on Fourth Amendment grounds, but can't for the life of me remember which one. If memory serves, only three states strictly forbid CAF unless there is a conviction, though I think there is a lot of legislation being tossed around to that effect in other states.

Brad

[cordex]

Other than the RICO laws and Ferraris and whatnot, are there any other instances besides guns where stuff taken by the cops is routinely not returned after a person is found innocent/cleared of something?

Like Brad mentioned, cash is a big one for civil asset forfeiture.

But other than that I've mostly seen minor illegal stuff, or stuff that people shouldn't have based on age (drug paraphernalia, tobacco products for people underage, etc).  That stuff routinely gets taken and destroyed.  I know a few retention ponds that are going to be chock full of glass pipes when they are drained.  Of course, in a lot of those situations the stuff is taken in lieu of charging the offense, so that's a little different ...

[Ben]

Like Brad mentioned, cash is a big one for civil asset forfeiture.

Yeah, I should have been clearer. I was kinda rolling cash into RICO, since IIRC, when they confiscate the five grand from the little old lady driving the cash from under her mattress to the bank, they use RICO as an excuse and call it "drug money" until the person can prove otherwise.

[WLJ]

I'm in shock this went 9-0

[charby]

I'm in shock this went 9-0

It's in vogue to neuter the police. 

[Nick1911]

Frankly, I find the entire concept of civil asset forfeiture utterly twisted and corrupt.  Being a civil procedure, they sidestep the requirements of criminal law.  "Civil forfeiture involves a dispute between law enforcement and property such as a pile of cash or a house or a boat, such that the thing is suspected of being involved in a crime. To get back the seized property, owners must prove it was not involved in criminal activity."

[cordex]

Frankly, I find the entire concept of civil asset forfeiture utterly twisted and corrupt. 

Agreed.

[WLJ]

It's in vogue to neuter the police.

As Jan 6th, and other events, showed it usually depends on whom the police are acting against

[MechAg94]

Frankly, I find the entire concept of civil asset forfeiture utterly twisted and corrupt.  Being a civil procedure, they sidestep the requirements of criminal law.  "Civil forfeiture involves a dispute between law enforcement and property such as a pile of cash or a house or a boat, such that the thing is suspected of being involved in a crime. To get back the seized property, owners must prove it was not involved in criminal activity."

I am more and more of the mind that no govt entity should be able to be a plaintiff in a civil suit unless they are suing another govt entity.  If govt punishment is not criminal, it should not exist.  I was trying to think of exceptions, but not coming up with any. 

[grampster]

The Michigan SC upheld criminal forfeiture with a horrible decision a few years ago.  A husband and wife co owned a car.  The husband used the car to obtain and act with a prostitute and was arrested.  The wife had no knowledge of his use in this fashion.  The government confiscated the car and denied the woman had any relief coming for her value in the vehicle.  The court agreed.
Criminal forfeiture in my mind is despicable government overreach, especially if no crime had been committed.

[kgbsquirrel]

It's in vogue to neuter the police.

Or it was so blatantly wrong not even the leftists could spin it.

[charby]

Or it was so blatantly wrong not even the leftists could spin it.

Quasi Left Biden did.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/23/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-let-cops-enter-homes-and-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=672162a32829

But in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling.

[kgbsquirrel]

Quasi Left Biden did.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/23/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-let-cops-enter-homes-and-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=672162a32829

When you multiply leftists with dementia anything is poggumanuolible.

[Hawkmoon]

Quasi Left Biden did.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/23/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-let-cops-enter-homes-and-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=672162a32829

Thank God we didn't get Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court.

[MechAg94]

Thank God we didn't get Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court.

That guy is certainly not hiding his views anymore.