SCOTUS -- WOW!!!!

[Hawkmoon]

https://apnews.com/f60d5690704648edbf7a967cb6d6e8df

The Supreme Court may be on the brink of putting a stake through the heart of asset forfeiture. Man, I've got my fingers, toes, and eyes crossed on this one. It should have happened a very long time ago.

[Ben]

I saw that earlier. It will be interesting to read which Justice went in which direction.

This sure seems like a "bipartisan" thing to me. I know very conservative people that hate it and very liberal people that hate it. I don't think I know anyone in meatspace that approves of it.

EDIT: I should add that I'm not crazy about this particular case being the one going to the SCOTUS. Quite likely the guy is a drug dealer. I wish it would have been one of the many asset forfeiture cases involving innocent people.

[Angel Eyes]

Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover LR2 v. Indiana


Apparently the Land Rover is a plaintiff.

[French G.]

Well, the assets are usually the defendant in the civil asset scam. $xx,xxxx cash vs. State of Thieves.

I wonder, this might actually blow a huge hole in the war on drugs. And really stir up some crazy local politics because some localities will soon be broke and trying to figure out why they have a small deputy army all in performance sedans.

[cordex]

I think it is interesting that the question for the Supreme Court is whether the eighth amendment applies to the states. The Feds do asset forfeiture all the time, sometimes to help local departments get around state laws.  

[gunsmith]

its appalling how little attention these cases get.
i have often wondered when a small war would breakout over this type of injustice

[Scout26]

I think it is interesting that the question for the Supreme Court is whether the eighth amendment applies to the states. The Feds do asset forfeiture all the time, sometimes to help local departments get around state laws.  

From the article:

“Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, general,” Gorsuch said to Fisher, using the term for holding that constitutional provisions apply to the states.

[cordex]

From the article:

“Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, general,” Gorsuch said to Fisher, using the term for holding that constitutional provisions apply to the states.

Exactly. If the argument is just whether or not the Bill of Rights also applies to the states (which should be settled law) then the assumption is that it must apply first and foremost to the Feds. If the Feds practice civil forfeiture as well then wouldn’t the same BoR arguments apply to them even harder?

[lupinus]

I believe the issue is the unreasonable part. In this case, taking a 40k vehicle for 400 worth of drugs. So the argument that it applies to the states.

Not to say that the feds do it reasonably or not, but I'm guessing where the line is drawn at "reasonable" is a different argument than if there's a line?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[fifth_column]

Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover LR2 v. Indiana


Apparently the Land Rover is a plaintiff.

I haven't looked into this lately but if I remember correctly the asset being seized is literally charged with a crime. 

[Pb]

I have a crazy idea... why don't we only seize assets from people only after conviction for an actual crime?  Or than the wicked crime of carrying a lot of money in your pocket in public, of course.

[Brad Johnson]

I should add that I'm not crazy about this particular case being the one going to the SCOTUS. Quite likely the guy is a drug dealer. I wish it would have been one of the many asset forfeiture cases involving innocent people.

This. It gives them the opportunity to work in language which will invariably be twisted to impossibility. The story even mentioned "...used in the commission of". Some poor sod who doesn't have the resources to fight a bogus charge will still see their possessions go bye-bye just because they were arrested. It needs to be ironclad language that does not allow seizure of possessions unless, at the very least, a conviction is upheld.

Brad

[Hawkmoon]

This. It gives them the opportunity to work in language which will invariably be twisted to impossibility. The story even mentioned "...used in the commission of". Some poor sod who doesn't have the resources to fight a bogus charge will still see their possessions go bye-bye just because they were arrested. It needs to be ironclad language that does not allow seizure of possessions unless, at the very least, a conviction is upheld.

[MechAg94]

I have a crazy idea... why don't we only seize assets from people only after conviction for an actual crime?  Or than the wicked crime of carrying a lot of money in your pocket in public, of course.

It appears he was convicted but...

Timbs’ criminal sentence included no prison time, a year of house arrest and five years on probation.

Does that sentence sound like something that should include a $40,000 fine? 

[MechAg94]

I found this pretty strange.  A doctor prescribed hydrocodone for sore feet.   

The story of how Timbs ended up in the Supreme Court began with steel-toed boots he bought for work in a truck factory. The boots hurt his feet, but he couldn’t immediately afford the insoles he was told to buy. A doctor wrote a prescription for hydrocodone. Before long, Timbs was hooked on heroin.

He tried several times to get clean but said he wasn’t ready. A more than $70,000 life insurance payout he received after his father’s death seemed a blessing, but it wasn’t, he said.

“A drug addict shouldn’t have a whole lot of money,” said Timbs, who used some of the money to buy the Land Rover.

[Sideways_8]

I haven't looked into this lately but if I remember correctly the asset being seized is literally charged with a crime. 

I can't seem to make any sense of this. Charging an inanimate object? That's shortsighted and stupid. What happens when someone sues on behalf of an inanimate object?

I found this pretty strange.  A doctor prescribed hydrocodone for sore feet.   

I'm required to wear steel toed boots for work. Picking them out is like picking out any other shoe. Get something that is comfortable, especially in the toe area because it doesn't stretch. Insole problem? Did you even try them on first? I have no sympathy for the guy. It's not hard to not be stupid.

[230RN]

That business of an inanimate object (or a sum of cash) being an actual criminal itself throws me.  I looked it up and there's some arcane legalese which I didn't understand that showed the legal <ahem, koff-koff> "logic" behind this.

"The law is an ass" from Charles Dickens occurs to me.

Terry

[Hawkmoon]

It's not hard to not be stupid.

It appears that you're quite wrong in that belief. People demonstrate this every day.

[RoadKingLarry]

Nearly everyday I am presented with additional information that reinforces my belief that Dick the Butcher had the right idea all along.

[KD5NRH]

I'm required to wear steel toed boots for work. Picking them out is like picking out any other shoe. Get something that is comfortable, especially in the toe area because it doesn't stretch.

Guy may have oddly shaped feet, or he's just not used to the shape of the boots yet.  My Red Wings were mail ordered, (for less than half the boot truck price) and took a couple days to break in and fit me right.  Some docs will prescribe Norco for anything that hurts; I've gotten 30 day supplies for all sorts of things where a prescription-only dose of naproxen or ibuprofen, plus 2-5 Norco tablets for the initial injury or major flare ups would have been a much better choice, IMO.

[zxcvbob]

I can't seem to make any sense of this. Charging an inanimate object? That's shortsighted and stupid. What happens when someone sues on behalf of an inanimate object?

That's the beauty of it; nobody has standing to sue on behalf of the money (car, house, whatever the police stole).

[Scout26]

It appears he was convicted but...

Timbs’ criminal sentence included no prison time, a year of house arrest and five years on probation.

Does that sentence sound like something that should include a $40,000 fine? 

Potentially, yes.  Fine in lieu of prison...

[Pb]

That's the beauty of it; nobody has standing to sue on behalf of the money (car, house, whatever the police stole).

Behold the stupidity of asset forfeiture:
https://clashtalk.kinja.com/15-civil-forfeiture-case-names-1615813458

United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film
United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency
United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins
United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls
United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola
United States v. One Book Called Ulysses
United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries
United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs
United States v. Vampire Nation
United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness
United States v. 2,507 Live Canary Winged Parakeets
United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque
Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin)
South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats
State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix.

[230RN]

^
"South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats"

I thought it was a typo for "cars."

But no:
https://loweringthebar.net/2013/10/south-dakota-fifteen-cats.html

The cats were not actually parties to the case. As you may know, this kind of case name derives from the practice of naming the item or animal as the "defendant" in certain cases that involve the seizure or ownership of property. See, e.g., Fortner v. ATF Agents Dog 1, Cat 2, and Horse 3, 2011 WL 11489 (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2011); United States v. 2,507 Live Canary Winged Parakeets, 689 F. Supp. 1106 (S.D. Fla. 1988); United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, 413 F. Supp. 1281 (D. Wisc. 1976). This is an odd but comical fiction that I will continue to milk as long as they keep doing it. See also, e.g., Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin), 215 N.W.2d 849 (Neb. 1974).

Schrödinger's cat jokes invited.

Terry

[Hawkmoon]

^
"South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats"

I thought it was a typo for "cars."

But no:
https://loweringthebar.net/2013/10/south-dakota-fifteen-cats.html

I thought the popo were only allowed to seize assets that were [allegedly] used in the commission of a crime. How were fifteen cats used in a crime? Were they drug mules?