3 ms·

But what set of idiot justices decided that the police can stop you, see you have $10k in your trunk, and then take it even though you tell them it is from your

But what set of idiot justices decided that the police can stop you, see you have $10k in your trunk, and then take it even though you tell them it is from your savings and you're on the way to buy a car?

pjc50 11y ago
The US Supreme Court, on a number of occasions. The case law is just full of outrageous stupidity, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennis_v._Michigan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennis_v._Michigan in the USSC ruled that a woman's car could be seized due to her husband's offence that was outside her control. The whole history of in rem actions is bonkers, as cases have titles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Article_Consisting_of_50,000_Cardboard_Boxes_More_or_Less,_Each_Containing_One_Pair_of_Clacker_Balls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Article_Consi...
- rayiner 11y ago
  You have to take decisions like that in context. That forfeiture arose under Michigan law. The Supreme Court wasn't saying that it's a good idea to allow the state to seize the car without accounting for the wife's interest. It was saying that Michigan's lack of an innocent owner defense to the seizure didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional violation. A lot of decisions that seem "outrageously stupid" make more sense if you think of the Supreme Court as an umpire. The democratically-elected legislatures are supposed to make good decisions. The unelected Supreme Court should only check them if they do something egregiously against the rules. The Court should let the "game play on" if there's not a very good reason to say that a 200+ year old document trumps a state legislature's contemporary decisions.
  - drumdance 11y ago
    The right to unreasonable search and seizure at the Federal level supersedes all state law. This was just a bad Supreme Court decision, morally in the same "ballpark" as Plessy vs. Ferguson
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Unfortunately for this argument, the word "reasonable" means pretty much the same thing now as it did in 1787, and is clearly meant to delegate most of the answer to this question to the people (in the form of the legislature), and not the philosopher-kings of the court. You will of course come up with many arguments, virtually all of which I'll agree with, that asset forfeiture is "unreasonable". The problem is that other people disagree with you, and, specifically and distinctively with this particular item in the bill of rights, the court is supposed to defer to the legislature as much as it can.
      - jbooth 11y ago
        I'm not a lawyer but this strongly disagrees with everything I learned in high school civics class about judicial review, and with many many high profile court cases overturning popularly enacted laws, from Marbury v Madison through to the current day gay marriage ban reversals. It seems pretty cut and dried to me that the 4th amendment supersedes any law passed in direct opposition, just like the 1st or 2nd would. This isn't a case where the courts would be making multiple logical leaps to invalidate a law they disagree with, you can describe it in 4 words "seizure without a trial", then look at the 4th amendemnt.
        tptacek 11y ago
        SCOTUS can of course overturn any statute for any reason, valid or not, subject to very few practical restrictions. So when we're talking about where they'll intervene, we're always doing that with the proviso that we're predicting their behavior based on their charter and their history. Having said that, the history of 4A law suggests that the word "reasonable" in 4A connotes a mandate for unusual deference to the legislature --- and SCOTUS already tends strongly towards deference.
      - drumdance 11y ago
        I'm not arguing that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants. I'm arguing that they are morally wrong. They've been morally wrong before and in a few cases overturned the previous precedent. But the only way they will do that again is if there is public pressure. So even if a lot of people disagree with me, the proper course of action is not to shut up and take my medicine. The proper course is to keep raising hell about it.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  Speaking of preposterous titles, don't forget "United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Casks of Coca-Cola" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_%26_Twenty_Kegs_of_Coca-Cola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels...), in which the vigilante-ish first commissioner of the FDA tried to remove the caffeine from Coca-Cola. (The company had already removed the cocaine.)
Symmetry 11y ago
It's mostly Nixon's fault. Back in the early 70s crime was rising and people were scared and they wanted to hear about how politicians were doing something. Murders were really a matter for local law enforcement rather than the Feds so Nixon came up with the politically brilliant idea of blaming crime on drug use, announcing a war on drugs, and creating new tools such as this sort of seizure of money. There was a big expansion of this in 1984 pushed by Biden that more or less gave us the modern form of asset forfeiture. And we're going to have to solve this problem at the Federal level. Many states have laws preventing police from keeping the money they seize. But the DEA is happy to take credit for the seizure, keep n% of the money, and hand the rest back to the department that did the seizing.

pjc50 11y ago

The US Supreme Court, on a number of occasions. The case law is just full of outrageous stupidity, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennis_v._Michigan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennis_v._Michigan in the USSC ruled that a woman's car could be seized due to her husband's offence that was outside her control. The whole history of in rem actions is bonkers, as cases have titles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Article_Consisting_of_50,000_Cardboard_Boxes_More_or_Less,_Each_Containing_One_Pair_of_Clacker_Balls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Article_Consi...

rayiner 11y ago
You have to take decisions like that in context. That forfeiture arose under Michigan law. The Supreme Court wasn't saying that it's a good idea to allow the state to seize the car without accounting for the wife's interest. It was saying that Michigan's lack of an innocent owner defense to the seizure didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional violation. A lot of decisions that seem "outrageously stupid" make more sense if you think of the Supreme Court as an umpire. The democratically-elected legislatures are supposed to make good decisions. The unelected Supreme Court should only check them if they do something egregiously against the rules. The Court should let the "game play on" if there's not a very good reason to say that a 200+ year old document trumps a state legislature's contemporary decisions.
- drumdance 11y ago
  The right to unreasonable search and seizure at the Federal level supersedes all state law. This was just a bad Supreme Court decision, morally in the same "ballpark" as Plessy vs. Ferguson
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Unfortunately for this argument, the word "reasonable" means pretty much the same thing now as it did in 1787, and is clearly meant to delegate most of the answer to this question to the people (in the form of the legislature), and not the philosopher-kings of the court. You will of course come up with many arguments, virtually all of which I'll agree with, that asset forfeiture is "unreasonable". The problem is that other people disagree with you, and, specifically and distinctively with this particular item in the bill of rights, the court is supposed to defer to the legislature as much as it can.
    - jbooth 11y ago
      I'm not a lawyer but this strongly disagrees with everything I learned in high school civics class about judicial review, and with many many high profile court cases overturning popularly enacted laws, from Marbury v Madison through to the current day gay marriage ban reversals. It seems pretty cut and dried to me that the 4th amendment supersedes any law passed in direct opposition, just like the 1st or 2nd would. This isn't a case where the courts would be making multiple logical leaps to invalidate a law they disagree with, you can describe it in 4 words "seizure without a trial", then look at the 4th amendemnt.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        SCOTUS can of course overturn any statute for any reason, valid or not, subject to very few practical restrictions. So when we're talking about where they'll intervene, we're always doing that with the proviso that we're predicting their behavior based on their charter and their history. Having said that, the history of 4A law suggests that the word "reasonable" in 4A connotes a mandate for unusual deference to the legislature --- and SCOTUS already tends strongly towards deference.
    - drumdance 11y ago
      I'm not arguing that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants. I'm arguing that they are morally wrong. They've been morally wrong before and in a few cases overturned the previous precedent. But the only way they will do that again is if there is public pressure. So even if a lot of people disagree with me, the proper course of action is not to shut up and take my medicine. The proper course is to keep raising hell about it.
clock_tower 11y ago
Speaking of preposterous titles, don't forget "United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Casks of Coca-Cola" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_%26_Twenty_Kegs_of_Coca-Cola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels...), in which the vigilante-ish first commissioner of the FDA tried to remove the caffeine from Coca-Cola. (The company had already removed the cocaine.)

Symmetry 11y ago

It's mostly Nixon's fault. Back in the early 70s crime was rising and people were scared and they wanted to hear about how politicians were doing something. Murders were really a matter for local law enforcement rather than the Feds so Nixon came up with the politically brilliant idea of blaming crime on drug use, announcing a war on drugs, and creating new tools such as this sort of seizure of money. There was a big expansion of this in 1984 pushed by Biden that more or less gave us the modern form of asset forfeiture. And we're going to have to solve this problem at the Federal level. Many states have laws preventing police from keeping the money they seize. But the DEA is happy to take credit for the seizure, keep n% of the money, and hand the rest back to the department that did the seizing.