Will the supreme Court rule on civil forfeiture?

[def90]

I don't know that I'd go that far ^^. On the other hand, forfeiture has become one of those useful tools that's been grossly misused in some instances.

As usual, it's really not the idea that's bad, it's how that idea is administered.

I would agree that it needs to be reigned in to a great degree and forfeiture should be allowed only in limited circumstances.

If forteiture happens in conjunction with a conviction then I’m all for it.. However civil asset forfeiture is used without even charges being pressed let alone a conviction. There are ways to sieze assets via the courts that don’t require the use of civil asset forfeiture.

If it isn’t banned by the supreme court at the very least the profits from forfeiture need to go to a dept other than the dept that makes the siezure.. for instance, all proceeds that come from civil asepset forfeiture must be applied to the state or local education budget on top of their regulat budget. This at least would reduce the motive for law enforcement departments to make random siezures when there is no crime committed or charges made.

[Irving]

If forteiture happens in conjunction with a conviction then I?m all for it..

Are you though? In the article the Supreme court made a point to ask if someone could have their property seized if they were going 5 mph over the speed limit.

Just because someone does something wrong, does NOT entitle the state to their things.

[Eric P]

If it isn’t banned by the supreme court at the very least the profits from forfeiture need to go to a dept other than the dept that makes the siezure.. for instance, all proceeds that come from civil asepset forfeiture must be applied to the state or local education budget on top of their regulat budget. This at least would reduce the motive for law enforcement departments to make random siezures when there is no crime committed or charges made.

NO!!!

If allowed to stay, all motive must be removed from government. Send the assets to Powerball or MegaMillions. 100% shall be awarded to the jackpot winner, no 50/50 split with the collecting .gov. this should be the same for all fines, fees or other levies collected by enforcement of any law.

Government should enforce the law for public safety, not budget enrichment.

[TFOGGER]

Criminal forfeiture, post conviction: Absolutely, with the proceeds used to aid the victims. No financial incentive for the arresting agency.

Civil forfeiture: No. By definition, civil forfeiture is directed at "guilty" property, which the owner then has to "prove" is innocent and/or not a threat to society to recover. Absolute bullshit, based on a flawed premise, not to mention a violation of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

[Jer]

The mere idea that a citizen can't go around with a few thousand bucks in his pocket because the cops can legally just take it away "because it's suspicious" is just ludicrous. Defies EVERYTHING that's right, honest and just. A perfect example of a police state policy.

I walk around with a G on me regularly and often times more depending on the day. Just because everyone else is broke doesn't mean I get to be looked at like some sort of a criminal. If I'm doing nothing wrong then carrying cash is NOT a crime. Doesn't matter if I'm walking around with a movie briefcase w/$100,000 cash in it. I've done nothing wrong.

That's as bad as having my car taken away just in case I might use it to get a DUI someday.

This stripping everyone of their freedoms in the same of safety is horse shit.

[buffalobo]

I think whatever the ruling it will be disappointing. It is not in the nature of courts or govts to honor rights or due process.

[def90]

Are you though? In the article the Supreme court made a point to ask if someone could have their property seized if they were going 5 mph over the speed limit.

Just because someone does something wrong, does NOT entitle the state to their things.

I’m talking standard forfeiture where gains that were made in the process of committing a crime.. as in cash proceeds from the sale of illegal goods. There is no gain/profit being made while speeding 5 over thus no basis for forfeiture.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/28/b...Ons5195wDtODTY

[Irving]

Not according to how it was interpreted to the courts. You mean that's what you are for?

[Rumline]

I'd much rather give clicks to SCOTUS Blog than Slate: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/ar...to-the-states/ Less hyperbole too.

I think whatever the ruling it will be disappointing. It is not in the nature of courts or govts to honor rights or due process.

This. They might incorporate the 8th Amendment, but look how effective that was with MacDonald.

[Irving]

Article about how New Mexico banned civil forfeiture statewide, but the major cities just ignored the law and continued anyway.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksib.../#b611d246a7d6