Will the supreme Court rule on civil forfeiture?

[Irving]

This article suggests the supreme Court may rule on civil forfeiture.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...orfeiture.html

[Eric P]

Civil forfeiture needs to be eliminated at all levels.

[Bailey Guns]

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.

[sroz]

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.

Agree. It should have very limited application. I foolishly believed when I first heard of it that it would be used against drug cartels and the like.

[CS1983]

While it's true that abuse does not take away use, abuse as a foundational premise does not legitimize use, either.

[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).

[Jer]

Civil forfeiture needs to be eliminated at all levels.

I couldn't agree more. No gray area. No exceptions.

You want someone's shit?

Get proof that they're doing something wrong and get a conviction. It's called due process and we're all entitled to it as US citizens.

That's too hard? Tough shit. My freedom doesn't take a backseat to someone who doesn't have enough evidence.

[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.