Supreme Court Blasts Civil Asset Forfeiture

[roberth]

Supreme Court Blasts Civil Asset Forfeiture; Explains To Indiana That The Constitution Applies There

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/02/20/supreme-court-blasts-civil-asset-forfeiture-explains-indiana-constitution-applies/


It is hard to overstate just how important this ruling is. It clearly sets the groundwork for successful attacks on civil asset forfeiture everywhere. The fact that the decision is 9-0 means there is limited ability to skirt it. Now it is a matter of time until it simply becomes too expensive for law enforcement agencies to engage in an action that is guaranteed to land them in court with a very, very weak hand.

[Irving]

Thank goodness. This is an issue that is very important to me.

[wctriumph]

Unless of course, there are firearms in the vicinity of the not a crime..

[Irving]

Since there doesn't have to be evidence of a crime, what protection do you have? Is a withdrawal receipt from the bank enough? If I'm carrying enough cash to be a candidate for civil forfeiture, you can bet I'll also be armed, if not wearing some type of body armor. All of that would look mighty fishy to a police officer, since everything looks fishy to a police officer.

[TFOGGER]

I'm wondering about using this to attack Red Flag laws. If they can't seize property without a criminal conviction(or without a warrant issued to collect evidence in a criminal case), doesn't that make Red Flag seizure even more unconstitutional?

[RblDiver]

Definitely a step in the right direction. While it didn't "outlaw" it (so to speak), it definitely makes CF a lot more difficult. I think it'd now be pretty easy to sue the seizing body if they take your property without any sort of conviction to back it up.

[brutal]

Being they also addressed egregious fines, how long before someone lowers the boom on those imposed by the EPA on regular folk?

ETA: Particularly egregious after nothing was done to the EPA or contractor that caused the Gold king mine spill.

[Shooter45]

Awesome decision and should definitely help in the future with this

[Zundfolge]

I would actually say "Supreme Court Whittles around the edges of Civil Asset Forfeiture" more than "Blasts" ... but this is still a good ruling and a step in the right direction.


This ruling doesn't speak to the core of the problem which is that CAF is at its core unconstitutional, all it does is say that if they take TOO MUCH then that's a no-no.

Now the good part is that this ruling once-and-for-all (well as much as any ruling can) incorporates the 8th Amendment.


So again, its a good ruling ... I'm happy it happened ... but its no where near far enough.

[Great-Kazoo]

Since there doesn't have to be evidence of a crime, what protection do you have? Is a withdrawal receipt from the bank enough? If I'm carrying enough cash to be a candidate for civil forfeiture, you can bet I'll also be armed, if not wearing some type of body armor. All of that would look mighty fishy to a police officer, since everything looks fishy to a police officer.

Well you're white, so




https://i.imgur.com/whZBzjFh.jpg





You're fucked

[Skip]

I'm wondering about using this to attack Red Flag laws. If they can't seize property without a criminal conviction(or without a warrant issued to collect evidence in a criminal case), doesn't that make Red Flag seizure even more unconstitutional?

One would think.

When Red Flag gets people killed (and it has in other states) it won't just be the guns that are seized, but life!

[theGinsue]

While I applaud this SCOTUS decision as it is a start in returning to Constitutional protections, we can't neglect to consider that it comes with an unintended consequence. That consequence is that, without the value of the confiscated assets, governmental bodies will see a reduction in revenue. In some jurisdictions, that lost revenue will be significant. I've never heard of any governmental body liking or being able to adjust to loss of revenue without finding a new way to make up for that revenue. I see more tax increases as a result of this decision.

[Irving]

I'd rather have they through tax than seizures. Taxes affect everyone and if they don't feel their tax money is being used well, that's just more voices at the table. The unknowing public just assumes that all seizures are from criminals and don't bat an eye. Further, theft directly from citizens only encourages more criminal activity from police. It's unfortunate that the case that's being used to help prevent further civil forfeiture is an actual criminal case. Or maybe it isn't because it demonstrates that the practice is so corrupt that even the theft from criminals is unjust.

[ChadAmberg]

While I applaud this SCOTUS decision as it is a start in returning to Constitutional protections, we can't neglect to consider that it comes with an unintended consequence. That consequence is that, without the value of the confiscated assets, governmental bodies will see a reduction in revenue. In some jurisdictions, that lost revenue will be significant. I've never heard of any governmental body liking or being able to adjust to loss of revenue without finding a new way to make up for that revenue. I see more tax increases as a result of this decision.

I've heard of entire groups in some police departments that are entirely self funding through asset forfeiture that they are responsible for. Holy crap can you say horrific idea? I don't care how idealistic someone might be, knowing that they only get paid by seizing money and property from potential criminals is just a bad idea.

[Irving]

I know it's a bit of of a pipe dream to assume that using tax revenue makes a department more accountable to the public that provides it, but they are infinitely more accountable than for stolen money.

[Irving]

Well you're white, so




https://i.imgur.com/whZBzjFh.jpg





You're fucked

Let's be real here. My whiteness isn't hurting me at all.

[BushMasterBoy]

Ok so you are a convicted felon, so you can't vote. You no longer have choice of representation. Then they seize your assets. Now you can't make a living. I think the Supreme Court voted this way due to pre-Constitutional case law i.e. the Revolution. The court saw enough abuse, that they put an end to it. Just my legal opinion.