Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

February 20, 2019, 01:15 PM

This is going to throw a monkey-wrench into more than one locality's money-making confiscation ventures

quote:

Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge
The Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines and fees applies to states as well, SCOTUS rules, opening a new way to challenge outlandish forfeitures.

Eric Boehm|Feb. 20, 2019 12:00 pm

States are bound by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines and fees when they seek to seize property or other assets from individuals charged or convicted of a crime, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday.

It's a decision that hands a major victory to critics of civil asset forfeiture, and it opens another avenue to legal challenges against that widely used (and often abused) practice by which states and local governments can seize cars, cash, homes, and pretty much anything else that is suspected of being used to commit a crime.

Full article: Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

February 20, 2019, 01:17 PM

a1abdj

Good.

February 20, 2019, 01:20 PM

HRK

Word is that RBG penned some of the decision...

February 20, 2019, 01:23 PM

Il Cattivo

^^ Beyond our more morbid hopes, is that really a bad thing? This is one area of the law where state and local governments really need to be brushed way the hell back.

Hurrah! Now this will have to be fought all the way down to the ground in state, and then local, courts (and you thought all the ongoing fights to force lower courts to accept that Heller and related cases mean what they mean were bad), but things are finally on the march in the right direction!

February 20, 2019, 01:24 PM

MNSIG

Wow! You know a law is ridiculously egregious when you get a unanimous slap down. About time.

February 20, 2019, 01:34 PM

BamaJeepster

Anything that whittles away at the egregious practice is a good thing.

However, I'm more concerned with the seizures taking place BEFORE someone is convicted than I am in seizing assets after a conviction.

But, like I said, anything that cuts into this practice until it can finally be abolished is a good thing. No way this is even in the realm of being constitutional (and yes, I am familiar with how the courts have improperly ruled on this in the past).

February 20, 2019, 01:58 PM

Perception

quote:
Originally posted by HRK:
Word is that RBG penned some of the decision...

Broken clock and all. Regardless of my feelings about any other feelings and decisions she's made, this one is right. The current state of civil forfeiture is truly shameful.

"The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford, "it is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them. They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards."
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, then the wrong lizard might get in."

February 20, 2019, 02:02 PM

az4783054

The SCOTUS just put the profit back into crime. I worked Asset Forfeiture for two years at the state and federal level.

We had more prosecution/judicial oversight than the public is lead to believe.

February 20, 2019, 02:04 PM

parabellum

quote:
Originally posted by az4783054:
The SCOTUS just put the profit back into crime.

Well, that's one way to look at it, but I see this differently.

February 20, 2019, 02:04 PM

Elk Hunter

quote:
Originally posted by ensigmatic:
This is going to throw a monkey-wrench into more than one locality's money-making confiscation ventures

quote:

Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge
The Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines and fees applies to states as well, SCOTUS rules, opening a new way to challenge outlandish forfeitures.

Eric Boehm|Feb. 20, 2019 12:00 pm

States are bound by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines and fees when they seek to seize property or other assets from individuals charged or convicted of a crime, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday.

It's a decision that hands a major victory to critics of civil asset forfeiture, and it opens another avenue to legal challenges against that widely used (and often abused) practice by which states and local governments can seize cars, cash, homes, and pretty much anything else that is suspected of being used to commit a crime.

Full article: Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

Damn! What a concept! States are actually subject to the constitution! Whoda thunk it?

Elk

There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn't end in their massacre. (Louis L'Amour)

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "
-Thomas Jefferson

"America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville

FBHO!!!

The Idaho Elk Hunter

February 20, 2019, 02:05 PM

BamaJeepster

quote:
Originally posted by az4783054:
The SCOTUS just put the profit back into crime.

By not allowing them to seize assets that were NOT in any way connected to a crime?

https://reason.com/blog/2018/1...iminal-justice-cases

quote:
The story: Tyson Timbs was arrested in 2015 after selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pleaded guilty to one count of dealing a controlled substance and one count of conspiracy to commit theft, and he was sentenced to one year of house arrest followed by five years of probation. He was also required to pay investigatory fees and court courts. On top of that, the state of Indiana seized his 2012 Land Rover—which he had purchased with money received from his late father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales—on the ground that it had been used to commit a crime.

Timbs appealed the forfeiture of his vehicle, arguing that he was already being punished for his crime and that seizing the truck, valued at $40,000, violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines. An appeals court found that the forfeiture of the Land Rover was "grossly disproportional" because it amounted to a penalty "approximately four times the maximum monetary fine" for the crimes Timbs had committed. The Indiana Supreme Court overturned that decision on the ground that the ban on excessive fines does not apply to the states.

February 20, 2019, 02:07 PM

Elk Hunter

quote:
Originally posted by az4783054:
The SCOTUS just put the profit back into crime. I worked Asset Forfeiture for two years at the state and federal level.

We had more prosecution/judicial oversight than the public is lead to believe.

How?

February 20, 2019, 02:09 PM

az4783054

When you have suspected criminals without any legitimate means of income per their tax statements, living in expensive homes and driving $100,000 cars, then yes! They also received food stamps!

Oh yeah, they dealing in kilos of dope or human trafficking that we followed up from the Mexican border along US interstate highway. The cartels pay so well that we caught an AZ DPS officer who hauled kilos on his days off.

We found millions of dollars per month going into multiple accounts to the same name. We thought it was dope, but it turned out to be human smuggling. At the time, that did not qualify under RICO so the cases had to be turned over to Immigration.

February 20, 2019, 02:20 PM

ensigmatic

quote:
Originally posted by az4783054:
When you have suspected criminals ...

I guess the whole "due process" thing went right over your head all this time?

February 20, 2019, 02:28 PM

Balzé Halzé

Fantastic. Very very pleased to see this.

February 20, 2019, 02:28 PM

berto

Seize post conviction. No more burden of proof on the accused to prove assets are legit.

February 20, 2019, 02:31 PM

downtownv

Every "DARE" car in every NJ town was the result of confiscation. They even letter it to note that fact.
It is/was highly abused with strong arm tactics.

February 20, 2019, 02:33 PM

Southflorida-law

This ruling was limited to the 8th being only related to Fed Forfeiture, and not to the states, per the Ill supreme court ruling. It specifically did not address the excessiveness of the forfeiture.

SCOTUS ruling was very narrow, 8th relates to the states via the 14th (our old friend).

What did the Wolf say to our intrepid hit men in Pulp Fiction?

February 20, 2019, 02:33 PM

corsair

You'd have thought the SJW lawyers would've been all over this some time ago, however it's always about the 1st and 2nd, forget the others.

February 20, 2019, 02:34 PM

Flashlightboy

I haven't read the decision but even before today I was still very much in favor of pre-conviction forfeiture.

I need to read the decision but as az478 said, forfeiture, at least on the basis that I'm familiar with, is not done ad hoc on a willy-nilly basis and the funds or items seized aren't given to or the property of the agency.

"Hey, let's arrest these suspected druggies. I need a new car for work and we can use their cash to fund the office water and coffee clubs or get new workout equipment."

Doesn't work that way.