Will the supreme Court rule on civil forfeiture?

[Irving]

In the past I've voted locally to increase funding for police departments. I don't think I'll ever do that again as long as civil forfeiture is an option. I suppose if local law enforcement were to ask for money in the future by running a campaign of transparency illustrating how they don't steal from the public that'd be different, but I won't be holding my breath. For the record, whenever I think about civil forfeiture, I never think of it in a local sense, usually assuming it's rampant elsewhere or with national agencies, but think globally, act locally and all that.

[68Charger]

The basic question should be- does it violate the 4th?

What constitutes "reasonable" seizure? IMHO, it should be reserved for cases where the assets would pose an immediate threat to the public (such as a suitcase full of cash you have "reasonable" proof that would be used to fund terrorism)

It has clearly been abused- one way to stop that abuse would be to forbid the seizing department from retaining the assets... but I'm sure some bad apples would find ways around that, too.
The basic root of the issue is the 4th- stop trying to figure out what to do with assets that were illegally seized in the first place.

There should also be heavy penalties written into the laws around forfeiture so if determined to be an illegal seizure, then the department pays (and a LOT).

[Irving]

Yeah but drugs are bad and people who do them deserve death and all their property stolen.

[rondog]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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