HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 9-0 SCOTUS ruling against...

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:30 PM

9-0 SCOTUS ruling against asset forfeiture, this is a big deal

Just came out an hour ago

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/430742-supreme-court-clamps-down-on-excessive-fines-by-states

This is a really big deal as it is the first time the 8th amendment has been applied to limit penalties and forfeiture at the state / local level. It opens the door wide to additional challenges against unreasonable fines and the common practice of seizing unrelated assets from suspects.

The case in question involved an individual with a drug related offense with a maximum fine of 10k. He had purchased a car with 40k of money from a life insurance policy paid out when his father died. His car was seized under the pretense that it had been used to transport drugs.

90 replies, 11660 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 90 replies Author Time Post
Reply 9-0 SCOTUS ruling against asset forfeiture, this is a big deal (Original post)
Amishman Feb 2019 OP
Sinistrous Feb 2019 #1
The Mouth Feb 2019 #37
Lucky Luciano Feb 2019 #56
cannabis_flower Feb 2019 #63
Lucky Luciano Feb 2019 #74
dixiegrrrrl Feb 2019 #84
themaguffin Feb 2019 #81
Nevilledog Feb 2019 #2
happybird Feb 2019 #53
Nevilledog Feb 2019 #55
Hamlette Feb 2019 #3
slumcamper Feb 2019 #12
Hoyt Feb 2019 #15
infullview Feb 2019 #32
Hamlette Feb 2019 #61
Cerulean Southpaw Feb 2019 #35
lunatica Feb 2019 #28
majdrfrtim Feb 2019 #46
Hamlette Feb 2019 #62
LiberalArkie Feb 2019 #4
A HERETIC I AM Feb 2019 #8
LiberalArkie Feb 2019 #11
alwaysinasnit Feb 2019 #22
Ligyron Feb 2019 #38
alwaysinasnit Feb 2019 #41
Ligyron Feb 2019 #44
klook Feb 2019 #54
Ligyron Feb 2019 #69
MurrayDelph Feb 2019 #88
shanti Feb 2019 #5
lunatica Feb 2019 #29
Rover1 Feb 2019 #33
lunatica Feb 2019 #34
quakerboy Feb 2019 #67
Salviati Feb 2019 #36
Amishman Feb 2019 #48
not_the_one Feb 2019 #6
lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #7
stopdiggin Feb 2019 #9
The Mouth Feb 2019 #39
stopdiggin Feb 2019 #68
The Mouth Feb 2019 #79
Volaris Feb 2019 #65
MagickMuffin Feb 2019 #10
PoliticAverse Feb 2019 #17
AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #26
DarthDem Feb 2019 #52
oldsoftie Feb 2019 #64
Volaris Feb 2019 #66
aikoaiko Feb 2019 #13
Hortensis Feb 2019 #19
Hortensis Feb 2019 #14
SunSeeker Feb 2019 #16
DFW Feb 2019 #18
Major Nikon Feb 2019 #20
DFW Feb 2019 #24
The Mouth Feb 2019 #40
Major Nikon Feb 2019 #50
NutmegYankee Feb 2019 #60
Cerulean Southpaw Feb 2019 #30
angrychair Feb 2019 #21
George II Feb 2019 #23
JT45242 Feb 2019 #25
gratuitous Feb 2019 #31
The Mouth Feb 2019 #42
happybird Feb 2019 #86
The Mouth Feb 2019 #89
eggplant Feb 2019 #43
USALiberal Feb 2019 #49
NickB79 Feb 2019 #58
happybird Feb 2019 #87
tymorial Feb 2019 #77
Blues Heron Feb 2019 #78
Uncle Joe Feb 2019 #27
question everything Feb 2019 #45
Blue_true Feb 2019 #57
The Mouth Feb 2019 #80
Blue_true Feb 2019 #83
yonder Feb 2019 #47
Pepsidog Feb 2019 #51
lpbk2713 Feb 2019 #71
Pepsidog Feb 2019 #75
TexasBlueDog Feb 2019 #59
RussBLib Feb 2019 #70
Demovictory9 Feb 2019 #72
KY_EnviroGuy Feb 2019 #73
samnsara Feb 2019 #76
Liberty Belle Feb 2019 #82
BobTheSubgenius Feb 2019 #85
NurseJackie Feb 2019 #90

Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:34 PM

1. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sinistrous (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:07 PM

37. Interestingly, this splits with people on the wrong side being both Democrats and Republicans

One very prominent Democratic presidential contender was strongly for civil asset forfeiture, and some Republicans are on record as being very much against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Mouth (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 06:24 PM

56. Indeed. That is a HUGE strike against her.

Ya gotta be fucked in the head to think asset forfeiture was just.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucky Luciano (Reply #56)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 08:05 PM

63. I have similar feelings about ...

Joe Biden and his role in mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cannabis_flower (Reply #63)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 05:50 AM

74. ...and rightfully so. Prison industrial complex. Puke. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucky Luciano (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 12:19 PM

84. Wasn't the forfeiture that was the problem.


It was the way it was applied. We had state cops doing stop and seize on the interstates esp. I-10.

Don't want to get rid of all forfeiture, esp, now with the Trump/Russia charges being applied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Mouth (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 11:36 AM

81. Who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:44 PM

2. This is huge.

Worse case I was personally involved in challenging was a brand new Mustang seized in Arizona by the Feds after the young man driving it was stopped and arrested for having less than a pound of weed. While we were filing motions arguing against the seizure the guy started getting parking tickets from San Francisco. Turns out the DEA was using the vehicle before any court had authorized its forfeiture. He got the car back.

And then there was the plane the Feds tried to seize..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 05:48 PM

53. They took and kept

the jewelry my friend's wife had inherited from her Grandmother. They also took the house, 2 cars, and a motorcycle, all bought before his short involvement with an MC. He had a great job and didn't make any money from the club.

They went through all the proper channels to get their property returned. The only items returned were a few pocketknives and his old club gear with the patches cut off. That's it. A big "haha, fuck you." It was total bullshit, nothing but a straight up robbery. The didn't even get their digital cameras and laptop with their daughter's baby pics on them back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happybird (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 05:57 PM

55. Absolutely.

Legalized stealing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:06 PM

3. very good news

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hamlette (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:36 PM

12. Especially if you're Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, etc., etc.

Or "Individual 1."

Am I missing something here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slumcamper (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:48 PM

15. Manafort was convicted of tax fraud. I suspect his fines, penalties, including jail time, would

warrant seizure of darn near anything he has, even under this ruling.

I doubt RBG or other 3 Justices would side with anything that protects those crooks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:42 PM

32. I believe Manafort violated his house arrest and therefore his bail arrangement which

gives the fed justifiable reasons to seize his assets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to infullview (Reply #32)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 07:30 PM

61. but not keep them forever unless convicted

It seems to me that the gov't can prove he failed to pay taxes in the millions. If so, the seizure will be upheld under this decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:53 PM

35. I think we can count on RBG and the other 3

Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor would side with anything that protects the constitution, even when those crooks get protected by it too.

It's the right wing ones that you can almost always count on to say "I don't like this guy so screw him even if it screws everyone". Especially Thomas.

Like you said, this won't protect Manafort or the others anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slumcamper (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:27 PM

28. You listed 3 people

Is that supposed to settle the argument on whether seizing all assets, some of which may not have been used in crimes is OK?

These things are litigiously debatable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slumcamper (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:31 PM

46. " . . . practice of seizing unrelated assets from suspects."

I suspect that “unrelated assets” is the operative phrase here, so *penalties* are probably not prohibited by this ruling, nor would illicitly-gained monies, I suppose. That being said, IANAL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slumcamper (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 07:35 PM

62. as a former public defender, the confiscations were used for pot users which pissed me off.

if they had enough to "sell" which was basically more than residue in a pipe, you lost your car IF the narcs wanted your car. Have a cute little VW or a nice Porsche? Gone. Have a 10 year old honda? They wouldn't take it unless it would fuck with your life in a major way. And of course it was completely up to the cops. The assholes wanted the cars. The good guys said "no biggie".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:10 PM

4. That is going to hurt the I-10 corridor cities

And does that mean that the police can not take someones home?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:26 PM

8. What?

I believe you are thinking of interstate 40. Tennessee is notorious for seizing cash from people driving across I-40, much more so than anything I have ever heard of on 10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:34 PM

11. I 10 has been famous for a long time.

California to Florida route

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:05 PM

22. Absolutely. I have always wanted to do a cross-country roadtrip, but the risk of encountering these

law enforcement thieves has deterred me. This is great news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alwaysinasnit (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:07 PM

38. That is exactly what I am doing this summer, I-10 from Florida to Cali.

Looking for interesting attractions, etc. to check out and experience along the way just now as that's always a big part of the fun.

Don't plan on bringing any weed or illicit substances with us but we will no doubt have some cash on us as most travelers always do. I need to figure out what the deal is with law enforcement seizing people's money.

hmmm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ligyron (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:14 PM

41. I wish you well, and safe travels. I would be nice to hear about the interesting attractions, so

please consider posting about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alwaysinasnit (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:26 PM

44. Thank you for the well wishes!

I will certainly document this journey as it may well be the last big road trip we take in this lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ligyron (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 05:50 PM

54. Sounds like a ton of fun.

Have a blast! I would have a hard time leaving New Orleans... then again, in the summertime, maybe not.

I want to do some road trips, too -- up the east coast to Maine, to the Southwest high desert, and maybe down to Key West.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to klook (Reply #54)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 10:07 PM

69. Oh, we are most def gonna be spending some time in New Orleans.

Let's see - Café du Monde in the cool of the AM for café au lait or maybe French roast with chicory but for sure a ton of Beignet either way to give Metformin a reason for existing.

While sure, it may get on the warm side later on, I figure oyster po-boys or red beans and rice will make for a couple of decent lunches and of course we plan on giving Antoine's a good working over one night at least before killing bunch of brain cells some place in the French Quarter.

The big question I'm researching now is: what comes next after New Orleans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ligyron (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 01:02 PM

88. I did it the other way around 14.5 years ago

When I was growing up in L.A., the Highway Department put up a sign in Santa Monica, where the I-10 begins at US1, declaring it to be The Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway. I took it as a challenge to verify one day. Unbeknownst to me at the time, when she was a kid, my wife set herself the same goal.

When my dad passed away in 2004, we inherited his car, which we didn't need, as we both had newer cars. But we also had a good friend in Orlando, who was just getting by, had also just lost his father, and was driving a car held together (inside and out) with duct tape.

So we drove my dad's car from Los Angeles to Jacksonville (where the 10 stops being a freeway, but continues all the way to a beach parking lot), then down to Orlando, where we then informed our friend that even though we were flying home, the car we came in wasn't a rental, it was his.

Our trip predates the Asset Forfeiture (aka Theft Under Color of Authority) boom, but I'd suggest that if you don't already have accounts with a credit union, open one so you only have to carry a reasonable amount of cash on you (which is one of the things the badged highwaymen look for), and can replenish as needed without service fees.

The best parts of the trip for us were New Orleans, and the slight detour up to Carlsbad Caverns. But there are also a bunch of public parks and gardens along the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:12 PM

5. Didn't Chump say

that asset forfeiture was one of the ways he intended to fund his feckin wall?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanti (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:32 PM

29. Isn't that Eminent Domain?

My understanding is that it doesn’t require a crime by the property owner for the government to just take property away from people for their government projects.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, because Trump is quite capable of breaking the law or using the laws to his ends. He does it all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:44 PM

33. No

 

There is compensation where eminent domain is enforced. No compensation would cause the seizure to be simple theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rover1 (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:52 PM

34. Thanks!

So there would be compensation though the property owner could sue, right! I assume it isn’t the same as asset forfeiture which should entail a criminal conviction, without compensation.

Is Trump really saying he’ll use asset forfeiture to take property which normally would be eminent domain? If he is, what is he basing that on? Is there a law he can use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #34)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 09:52 PM

67. As I understand it

He is planning to take some money from a fund holding money the government gained via asset forfeiture.

Which I am sure is pissing off plenty of LE, because they generally seem to regard that as their play money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rover1 (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:55 PM

36. Compensation, in theory at least.

Apparently there are lots of people that still haven't been compensated for land seized under GWB the last time this wall nonsense came up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salviati (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 04:13 PM

48. and the compensation offered is usually a joke

There was a case in my area a number of years back where compensation was based on the current value of recently sold properties along a particular road. The problem was the road was being widened into a highway which was why properties along it were being taken. Because of the incoming highway, the houses being sold were going extremely cheaply as no one wanted to buy a house squished up against a newly constructed high traffic multi-lane road. All the home owners were completely screwed over by the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:14 PM

6. I know this is the state level

but this will be the first thing turdface will pull out of his ass to fall back on if assets are taken through rico....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to not_the_one (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:20 PM

7. What assets? Turdface is in hock up to his pink eyeballs.

Putin holds the IOUs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:27 PM

9. About damned time

Yes,it is a big deal.

And 2) should have been addressed by the courts (AND legislative and executive) long, long ago.
And 3) further has been recognized by virtual EVERYONE as a dirty, corrupt and quite possibly illegal tactic for a similarly long, long while. (with the obvious exception of a few LEO riding the gravy train -- while no doubt subscribing to the "ends justifying the means" and other such self-serving rationalizations)

And yet, a practice that absolutely STINKS of corruption has been sanctioned and persisted for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopdiggin (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:09 PM

39. Yes, and someone I would otherwise LOVE to support for President

is on record as supporting it. And some genuinely otherwise scum-sucking villains on the other side are very happy with this decision.

Weird times. Good to get this settled before the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Mouth (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 10:02 PM

68. devil in the details

Perhaps I should clarify.
I am not necessarily against ALL examples of civil forfeiture.
The problem is with the gratuitous (and oftentimes frankly illegal) exercise of the principle. The places where law enforcement has CLEARLY overstepped.

The SC made a point of singling out a case where the property seized was demonstrated to be NOT a product of criminal activity.
As a first step (and as a signal to the lower courts) I think this is an excellent first step.

And I take no position on, nor see a lot of merit in examining, who else is on either this or that side of the fence.
Just one guy's opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopdiggin (Reply #68)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 09:38 AM

79. I am just hoping that the

candidate I really like uses this opportunity to renounce their position on Civil Asset Forfeiture!

Any support whatsoever of civil asset forfeiture in the absence of a guilty verdict would render anyone as utterly unacceptable; deal breaker for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopdiggin (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 09:34 PM

65. Yep and seized funds and property are used to fund the War on Drugs (which mostly, means pot).

I moonlight at at a motel. About twice a week, we have a guy from Homeland security drug task force? come in and ask if we've seen anything suspicious. He's looking for interstate drug trafficking, and I believe he's a good person, and a good LEO.
But I'm gonna ask him about this next time I see him, and his response will tell me a lot.

Personally, I'm happy about this.
And that this decision was NINE TO NOTHING, tells me the SC was not fucking around with this, and ALSO thought the practice was bullshit.

Nine Zip isn't so much a court opinion anymore, as it is a goddamn MESSAGE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:32 PM

10. WOW 9-0, that is a rarity in and of itself


Kudos to the SCOTUS for defending the citizens from money grubbing law enforcers.


Now, let's see them do something about the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MagickMuffin (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:15 PM

26. They aren't rare at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MagickMuffin (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 05:24 PM

52. Not Rare

They just don't get the publicity that split decisions do, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DarthDem (Reply #52)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 08:24 PM

64. Exactly. Just like we only see ONE good story on the local news every week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MagickMuffin (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 09:41 PM

66. That solution from the court would require them invalidating The Patriot Act.

Heh good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:38 PM

13. Wow. SCOTUS does a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:54 PM

19. But for entirely for the same reasons and

protection of the same people, though? Kavanaugh's writings, for instance, show a strong authoritarian pattern of increasing the power of the state over the individual. But a lot of very wealthy people and businesses, the kind authoritarians believe should run the state, have also been vulnerable to seizures. And his writings also show a pattern of protecting the wealthy and powerful when conflicts -- like this one -- arise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:46 PM

14. 9-0 says a lot, and so good to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:50 PM

16. Wow. I am truly shocked it's 9-0.

Gives me hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:52 PM

18. I don't know what possessed the Republican Five to vote that way

But I sure as hell wish they'd vote that way more often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:57 PM

20. It's an issue civil libertarians have had for quite some time

So it really shouldn't be all that surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:09 PM

24. Except

This time the civil libertarians were on the side of the little guy who got screwed, and libertarians usually don't give a rat's ass about anyone. Their view is usually that bad fortune is your own damn fault, period. This time, they have recognized that people are being wronged, and it needs to stop. Jumping in on the wronged party's behalf is decidedly atypical for them, unless they are the wronged party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:13 PM

40. A bit simplistic there, of generally true

Libertarians are also very anti drug war and also against foreign intervention, even if ass backwards on corporations and economic inequality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 05:09 PM

50. I differentiate civil libertarians from looneytarians

Looneytarians pretend to be civil libertarians, but really they are only civil libertarians whenever it doesn’t conflict with monied interests. In this case it doesn’t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 06:40 PM

60. Your mixing up civil libertarians and Libertarians (politcal party)

The former is the ACLU, the latter is Ayn Rand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:33 PM

30. It's a little bit surprising

because the guy was caught with heroin, and that's the excuse they used to seize his truck.

The right wing likes to throw the book at drug violations without thinking about the precedent, and like the saying "hard cases make bad law".

It's good that the supremes all understood that this time, instead of the right wing ones being statists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:04 PM

21. So republicans are against this

But for taking properties from people to build trump’s fucking wall?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:06 PM

23. Does this apply to RICO convictions, too? And what about Manafort forfeiting up to $50M?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:10 PM

25. Hurts crime labs badly

I took several forensic science graduate classes. This ruling will be a major setback to crime labs and police forces in general.

Each state had a law, passed at the request of police department and similar groups, that mandated that the money used from seized assets could only be used to buy equipment: Kevlar vests, ballistic analysis microscope, mass spectrometer, etc.

The NY State crime lab is called"the house that crack built." Those funds have allowed crime labs to get better DNA testing equipment which shortens the backlog of cases and allows the testing of old rape kits.

There will be problems related to this decision.

Although some localities may have abused it, it did provide funds for law enforcement by taking from those who broke the law. The comment about the parking tickets was a clear violation. All assets are legally required to be kept in impound until a case us resolved as a conviction, plea deal, or acquittal.

I know that ten years ago the Kentucky State crime lab was using equipment and procedures that were 5 years behind what high school students were doing with electrophoresis. I fear that will happen again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JT45242 (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:35 PM

31. Easy solution

Fund crime labs and train the next generation with money from a state's general fund. If it's important, dedicate tax revenues to it. This also has the salutary effect of occasional legislative review of these programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JT45242 (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:14 PM

42. I don't have a problem

as long as any forfeiture follows a GUILTY VERDICT.

Better that any entity not get a CENT than one dollar be taken from an innocent person

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Mouth (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 12:37 PM

86. There need to be hard guidelines on what,

exactly, can be seized after a guilty verdict. Items attained or bought with money earned through illegal activity? Sure. No problem.

But how do they determine what was purchased with legitimate income and what was purchased with the illicit funds? What about items purchased prior to the illegal activity? What about family heirlooms or property that belongs to family members? They don't even attempt to suss that out. They just take it all.

They can take *everything* regardless of the total value or when/how the items were acquired. And then you have to pay through the nose to mount an attempt to prove a negative. And you'll lose.

As that one Sheriff infamously said, "it's like pennies from Heaven." They do not give a fuck, as long as they keep getting "free" stuff and "toys."

There's way too much grey area. This must be fixed with clear laws and hard limits. The police should have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any seized property was acquired or bought through illicit activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happybird (Reply #86)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 02:32 PM

89. Agree.

My point being that *NOTHING* should ever be seized without a 'Guilty' verdict. Period, in any circumstances, for any reason. Let's put this genie back in the bottle and disenfranchise and deport (after applying a good coat of tar and feathers) any craven fascist who even suggests is should be loose

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JT45242 (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:17 PM

43. Civil asset forfeiture doesn't require a criminal conviction.

https://ij.org/press-release/new-york-earns-acanadacana-in-acanapolicing-for-profitacana-report/

Also, my own municipality in NY voted to pay for an off-duty cop to patrol a high traffic corridor solely for the purpose of revenue generation. Civil asset forfeiture is commonly used for simple theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JT45242 (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 04:53 PM

49. Who gives a fuck, fund it with a plan not taking advantage of people. Read more about the abuse!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JT45242 (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 06:34 PM

58. Stop outfitting police with military-grade gear every chance you get

Maybe if we cut off some of their illicit funding, they won't gear up and act like every traffic stop is a mission into goddamn Fallujah and every ounce of weed is a hand grenade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #58)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 12:46 PM

87. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JT45242 (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 08:06 AM

77. Then the states need to raise taxes or stop wasting tax payer dollars on imprisoning people

For years over petty nonviolent drug offenses. Of course the death penalty could be done away with as well and that would save a boat load.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JT45242 (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 08:22 AM

78. Don't take stuff that doesn't belong to you

Basic.

Cry me a river about the police labs! What utter BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:20 PM

27. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Amishman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:28 PM

45. What does Kamala Harris say?

She supported this while CA AG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #45)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 06:32 PM

57. Her support of asset seizure was very refined.

You forgot to mention that part. There are cases where the amount of evidence stacked against a person makes it rather plain that the person is a criminal that is dangerous to society, in such a case, taking assets from that person is in the general public's interest.

Since you are into asking questions about democrats running for our party nomination for President. What does Bernie have to say about tens of thousands of gun deaths per year and a terrorist or job rage event every week involving guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #57)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 10:03 AM

80. Also very legitimate.

We need to examine our candidates *AND* make sure they listen to us. That's what the Primary is for. I could see Bernie's support for RKBA being an utter deal breaker, at least in the Primary, for a Democratic voter.

I. for one, am damned well into, and supportive of "asking questions about Democrats running for our party nomination for President", and anyone who isn't is a fool. And this applies to EVERY candidate running.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is an issue that cuts across party lines, there are as many on the right, as on the left against it, and there are people on the right and the left that see some legitimate use of it.

Personally, I'm utterly against it in *ALL* cases where there is not a guilty verdict; better to let 10,000 drug dealing gangsters run loose than take a dollar from an innocent person. OTOH, if Kamala wins the primary, I'm voting 'D', end of subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Mouth (Reply #80)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 12:06 PM

83. Straight forward answer. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 04:11 PM

47. About time, what took so long?

To me, the 9-0 decision is curious in that this awful practice of pre-conviction CAF was an obvious sore thumb that needed tending too. Why did it take so long?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 05:10 PM

51. As a criminal defense attorney I have seen the power of civil asset forfeiture abused by county

prosecutors that resulted in some very unfair results. Its organized theft by the State of someone's assets. Even
unwitting family members could lose property and the legal costs to contest these civil asset forfeitures is often as much if not more than the forfeited item is worth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pepsidog (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 11:37 PM

71. I never understood how the legal justice system ...



could take ownership of a citizen's private property.

It doesn't seem legal and it certainly isn't justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lpbk2713 (Reply #71)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 07:47 AM

75. In some cases where property was purchased with ill-gotten gains, then forfeiture was appropriate.

But they went to far and started going after property that was purchased with clean money and/or property of an innocent party who just happened to lend a car to a friend who used it to pick up drugs to sell. I had a case where grandparents purchased a new car for grandson who used it to drive to a house to commit burglary. They went after the new car which had no money owed. After fighting to get it back for 2 years my client gave up. The law says if grandparents knew or should have known of his illegal activity then even though the car was purchased by them it could be forfeited. And the standard of prof was preponderance of evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 06:37 PM

59. Best news in a long time...

Asset forfeiture went to the soul of who we are as a country. It is truly evil, it makes common thieves of the people we should trust the most. I would warn friends from overseas to not bring cash to America, I told friends who were fortunate enough to have paid for cars to put a small lien on it because the cop thieves won't take a car with a loan against it, too much trouble getting the title. Maybe some professional courtesy among thieves too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBlueDog (Reply #59)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 11:25 PM

70. CAF is still a legal thing

Civil Asset Forfeiture will go on, it's just the disproportionate nature of the penalty that is going away. Seems fair. Or fairer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 11:38 PM

72. crazy Jeff Sessions is all for asset grabbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 05:36 AM

73. I've always seen CAF as conviction without due process because....

once assets have been seized, they're extremely difficult (and expensive) to get back.

For example, let's say a guy is caught with drugs or stolen property in his car at night, and cops take the car to an impound lot. Unfortunately, the guy's wife has to have that car to earn much of the family's normal income. Does it not require quite an ordeal to get the vehicle released back to that family?

Why not rather than seizure, somehow earmark the asset with identification for the court with a condition it can't be sold pending due process in court, so that subsequent court action could order seizure if justified?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 07:50 AM

76. is this just for drugs? cuz I still totally support this practice against poachers....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 12:03 PM

82. Good. I read about a restaurant owner on his way to deposit $17,000 cash

and a cop who found it in his car during a traffic stop decided that was probably cause that he must be doing drugs or something illegal. There was no evidence of any crime but his money got taken, and at the time I read the story he was on the verge of losing his home and restaurant because of that loss.

Some legal businesses deal in a lot of cash, and that alone should not be considered adequate evidence to seize anybody's assets.

Frankly I don't think assets should ever be seized unless there is a conviction and then only from the individual who did the crime, not innocent relatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 12:31 PM

85. And the case cited was actually a pretty reasonable connection between assets and crime.

Seizures have been made on FAR flimsier evidence, and, in fact, no evidence at all. The entity charged in the crime that is the pretext for seizure is also the defendant. So....US v $1000 Cash for instance.

Worse, you have to PROVE that your asset is innocent, and unrelated to any criminal activity. Police have been using this gigantic injustice as bank accounts. One precinct had a rec hockey team, and used money seized to buy a Zamboni, and another bought a margarita machine.

Vital crime-fighting tools, legitimately obtained, no doubt,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 10:44 AM

90. Does this mean that COHEN will have his seized property returned to him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread