Supreme Court Blasts Civil Asset Forfeiture

[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










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.