3 ms·

Civil asset forfeiture is fine if you're convicted, and the law says it's ok for a given crime. The current situation is ridiculous, and I'm surprised nobody br

Civil asset forfeiture is fine if you're convicted, and the law says it's ok for a given crime. The current situation is ridiculous, and I'm surprised nobody brought a case all the way to The Supreme Court (I mean a case when a person was not charged and/or not found guilty).

eldavido 11y ago
Small nitpick, the word "civil" is important here. If you're convicted of a crime, there is nothing "civil" about it, you're tried opposing a public official (district attorney -- not a private party) and convicted of a criminal offense. I don't think anyone here is arguing that asset forfeiture isn't appropriate for convicted criminals.
nickff 11y ago
If something is taken when you're convicted, it's usually criminal asset forfeiture. One argument in favor of civil asset forfeiture is that it is the only way to take assets from the estate of a criminal who died before being convicted. The Supreme Court only takes cases it wants, usually because different circuit courts (the level below the Supreme Court) are at odds with one another. The Supreme Court also sometimes takes cases which they are certain will have circuit splits, ones of particular importance (Bush v. Gore), and those which are causing a body of law to be developed which the SC justices believe to be incorrect. Because of these facts, you cannot force a case on to the Supreme Court docket; they are probably waiting for the right case to take.
- stretchwithme 11y ago
  Can't you just get it from the estate? Anyway, that's relatively rare and doesn't justify suspending the property rights of individuals without due process.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Why would the estate give its property to the government instead of following the will? It is not as rare as you might think, but even if it were very frequent, it would not justify taking people's property for no good reason.
    - stretchwithme 11y ago
      I meant upon conviction they can get what the person would have been fined. Can't execution of the will wait until all cases are finished?
InvisibleCities 11y ago
>I'm surprised nobody brought a case all the way to The Supreme Court State's Attorneys will typically drop Civil Asset Forfeiture cases before they get to the Supreme Court for that reason. It's better to give up a few cases here and there than to fight them and risk taking down the whole system, I guess.
rdtsc 11y ago
> I'm surprised nobody brought a case all the way to The Supreme Court (I mean a case when a person was not charged and/or not found guilty). Well Congress could just pass a law and get it down with quicker. No need to wait for any convenient case to go to Supreme Court. But Congress, and guessing local state legistators, are not putting this on the top of their agenda. Police usually seize things from minorities, those who perceived do not have the power or resources to fight back. You don't see cops pulling Trump or Gates on their way to a fundraiser and confiscating their cash. They probably don't hang out in multi-million dollar home neighbourhoods doing it. Because in that case, shit will hit the fan very fast. But nobody cares if a black kid with $11k gets his money taken. Look at him, he smoked pot, most people 50 and older see a druggy criminal type alread, mix in some deep seated racism, and you are close to "good, he deserved it" mentality.

eldavido 11y ago

Small nitpick, the word "civil" is important here. If you're convicted of a crime, there is nothing "civil" about it, you're tried opposing a public official (district attorney -- not a private party) and convicted of a criminal offense. I don't think anyone here is arguing that asset forfeiture isn't appropriate for convicted criminals.

nickff 11y ago

If something is taken when you're convicted, it's usually criminal asset forfeiture. One argument in favor of civil asset forfeiture is that it is the only way to take assets from the estate of a criminal who died before being convicted. The Supreme Court only takes cases it wants, usually because different circuit courts (the level below the Supreme Court) are at odds with one another. The Supreme Court also sometimes takes cases which they are certain will have circuit splits, ones of particular importance (Bush v. Gore), and those which are causing a body of law to be developed which the SC justices believe to be incorrect. Because of these facts, you cannot force a case on to the Supreme Court docket; they are probably waiting for the right case to take.

stretchwithme 11y ago
Can't you just get it from the estate? Anyway, that's relatively rare and doesn't justify suspending the property rights of individuals without due process.
- nickff 11y ago
  Why would the estate give its property to the government instead of following the will? It is not as rare as you might think, but even if it were very frequent, it would not justify taking people's property for no good reason.
  - stretchwithme 11y ago
    I meant upon conviction they can get what the person would have been fined. Can't execution of the will wait until all cases are finished?

InvisibleCities 11y ago

>I'm surprised nobody brought a case all the way to The Supreme Court State's Attorneys will typically drop Civil Asset Forfeiture cases before they get to the Supreme Court for that reason. It's better to give up a few cases here and there than to fight them and risk taking down the whole system, I guess.

rdtsc 11y ago

> I'm surprised nobody brought a case all the way to The Supreme Court (I mean a case when a person was not charged and/or not found guilty). Well Congress could just pass a law and get it down with quicker. No need to wait for any convenient case to go to Supreme Court. But Congress, and guessing local state legistators, are not putting this on the top of their agenda. Police usually seize things from minorities, those who perceived do not have the power or resources to fight back. You don't see cops pulling Trump or Gates on their way to a fundraiser and confiscating their cash. They probably don't hang out in multi-million dollar home neighbourhoods doing it. Because in that case, shit will hit the fan very fast. But nobody cares if a black kid with $11k gets his money taken. Look at him, he smoked pot, most people 50 and older see a druggy criminal type alread, mix in some deep seated racism, and you are close to "good, he deserved it" mentality.