18 ms·
SCOTUS Rejects Guilty Until Proven Innocent – Can't Keep Money from the Innocent
- Neliquat 9y agoThis is a huge step forwards. I only hope asset forfiture is next.
- dvdhnt 9y agoAgreed; I actually thought asset forfeiture would be the subject of this article until I read it. Perhaps that's because I know that asset forfeiture is ongoing and never thought something like Colorado's "Exoneration Act" could ever exist.
- smhenderson 9y agoFrom another article[1]: With this ruling the Nelson decision may set an important precedent to rain in another abusive civil proceeding called civil forfeiture. The parallels are striking. Through civil forfeiture, law enforcement can confiscate and keep cash, cars in real estate without securing a criminal conviction or filing charges against the owner. Perversely under civil forfeiture, even those not found guilty in criminal court can still forfeit their property in civil court, since the latter has a lower standard of proof. So hopefully they are correct and we'll see a reexamination of asset forfeiture sooner than later. [1] https://dawgonnit.com/2017/05/02/supreme-court-rejects-guilty-until-proven-innocent/ https://dawgonnit.com/2017/05/02/supreme-court-rejects-guilt...
- openasocket 9y agoI'm confused as to why it hasn't yet. There have been complaints about civil asset forfeiture since like the '90s? How has a case not been challenged and gone to the Supreme Court yet? Or has it gone already, and been upheld? I honestly don't understand how civil asset forfeiture can be constitutional, and I'd like to hear someone give any kind of argument otherwise.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- burkaman 9y agoThere was a related case recently: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf
- Spooky23 9y agoIt's tough because the legal theory is established and sound depending on your point of view. It arises from maritime law around contraband and ships. The problem is that the scope of how it's implemented today is much larger and more impactful. The result is that we have policy at the Federal level that effectively criminalizes cash. Because the legal foundation is sound, it is difficult for the courts to act -- we really need changes in law. That's why law originates from the Congress... to check the executive.
- phkahler 9y agoI was unhappy about this: "In Congress, the FAIR Act by Sen. Rand Paul and the DUE PROCESS Act by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner would both reform federal forfeiture laws so that property owners are innocent until proven guilty. " An act of congress should not be required to regain constitutional rights. I would much prefer SCOTUS take one of the cases and slap them down at that level to set the highest precedent.
- sbov 9y agoI'm not a lawyer, that byline seems to be misleading. Property owners ARE innocent until proven guilty. In civil asset forfeiture the PROPERTY is charged with a crime, not the owner. Which is the ridiculous part. You shouldn't be able to charge property with a crime if you can locate the owner.
- sverige 9y agoMy understanding is that suing in rem began with ships, since they are quite valuable and movable at the same time. Thus, ships can be sued and arrested to prevent the asset from being removed from the jurisdiction. It has been expanded considerably since those simpler times, mostly I think to benefit the coffers of government agencies that could not convince legislators to provide them with bigger budgets.
- nommm-nommm 9y agoYes, that's called in rem jurisdiction (power over objects) and the resulting cases can sound very comical United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque
- Kinnard 9y agoI don't know if I'd characterize it as a 'huge step'. I don't want to be negative but I think there are risks to clinging to this modicum of good news while the House is crumbling around us.
- Mrtierne 9y agoAgreed. Far too many reports of abuse of civil forfeiture.
- davrosthedalek 9y agoIt was a 7:1 vote. Is there a resource to look up how individual judges voted?
- ambulancechaser 9y agooyez.org will have the votes. Justice Thomas dissented and Justice Alito concurred in the result but not in the argument. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/581/15-1256/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/581/15-1256/ is the opinion, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1256 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1256 has recorded oral argument, opinions and summaries. Good reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/690jb0/scotus_rules_71_that_acquitted_defendants_are/ https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/690jb0/scotus_rules_71... with a biased title but good discussion.
- iaw 9y agoI'm kind of stupid about the SCOTUS, what does it mean that "Alito concurred in the result but not in the argument?" Edit: Thank you for the explanations, especially the fact that they aren't strict yes-no votes (that makes a ton of sense now).
- ceejayoz 9y ago"I agree with the decision, but I came to my decision via different logic."
- angli 9y agoHe thinks that the majority reached the right conclusion (the result - that the defendants were entitled to the money) but not for the right reason (the particular argument that the majority opinion made)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- droithomme 9y agoIt means he agrees that the money should be returned, but not for the same reasons that the other justices gave. So he'll have his own section in the judgement explaining his own reasoning.
- pc86 9y agoWho dissented? I would be interested in reading the dissent and seeing if it was based off of some technicality of this case, or a belief that requiring someone to prove their innocence wasn't a violation of their Constitutional rights.
- jimrandomh 9y agoClarence Thomas. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf
- wnevets 9y agoI think we all knew this was the answer before reading a single thing about the case
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- alayne 9y agoIt doesn't sound like he supports forfeiture in general. According to the article "And Justice Clarence Thomas (the lone dissenter in the Nelson decision) recently slammed civil forfeiture for its “egregious and well-chronicled abuses.”"
- jbooth 9y agoYeah, but he has a history of dumb contrarian lone dissents that throw some poor citizen under the bus. Generally when the question "who the heck dissented on that?!?!" is asked, the answer is Thomas.
- zeveb 9y ago> Yeah, but he has a history of dumb contrarian lone dissents that throw some poor citizen under the bus. That's because he interprets the Constitution and the law according to what he believes them to mean, not according to what he wishes they would mean. In this case, he clearly states that he sees no constitutional requirement for the State to return property after it has been confiscated post-conviction (as an aside, the article title is misleading: this wasn't confiscation prior to or absent a conviction). The Constitution does not mandate all good things, nor does it forbid all bad things.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- justinclift 9y agoWonder if Kim Dot Com's legal team would be able to make use of this in their ongoing US legal saga?
- djsumdog 9y agoHe would have to be extradited (they're still trying to fight that in NZ), be put on trial, and then win. Even then, this seems to only cover the legal fees. He'd still have to sue the State for the loss of all the servers, taken from him in a country he had never set foot in.
- ars 9y agoI don't understand this: > Ali had previously sold the Chevy but still held title to it and it was registered in his name ..... In order to regain his Chevy, Ali was asked to prove his innocence. Why does he need to regain "his" Chevy? It said he sold it, so it's not his anymore. Just the title transfer was not registered yet (which in my state is pretty common, especially for junk cars, since the state charges a fee and sales tax to record the transfer).
- mikhailt 9y agoIn certain states, the title proves the transfer (sale) of the vehicle. I didn't read the whole article, the paywall is blocking it but if there is no legal document to prove the sale has taken place, then the car still belongs to the name on the title, regardless of what happened. In other words, it doesn't matter if he got paid 10K for the car, if the purchaser don't have any documents, he is SOL.
- FireBeyond 9y agoWell, yes and no. The purchaser would certainly have a civil claim against him for breach of contract. I'm not sure how Ali even got involved in this, other than a chance to fuck someone over who had little recourse.
- ars 9y ago> if the purchaser don't have any documents But it's not the purchaser who is suing - it's the original owner, who already got paid. So why is he suing to get paid again, or get a car back that's not actually his?
- kstenerud 9y agoIf you look up the actual case, the buyer was still making payments on the car, which is why Ali still held the title.
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoDoes this mean police can't legally steal your money anymore?
- greensoap 9y agoIt may have implications for civil forfeiture practices. But the case was about when the state holds onto restitution money even after a conviction is overturned. So it probably won't change civil forfeiture practice in the near term.
- djsumdog 9y agoRight, and forfeiture doesn't always involve a guilty conviction. Say a kid uses his mom's car to commit a crime. He could have taken it without her permission (stolen it) and now it becomes part of the crime. There was a real case posted on HN a few months back like this. Now if someone had property taken and was later found innocent, would this immediately release the property taken in that particular forfeiture without a 2nd civil court case?
- jdc0589 9y agoDoes this have any implications for the ridiculous seizures of property police carry out every now and then when they pull someone over who has a large amount of cash on them? The whole idea of a court case titled, e.g., "State of Texas vs $45,000" is asinine. I'd love to see the SCOTUS lay down the law on that bullshit.
- tyingq 9y agoThe author seems to think so. "Armed with this ruling, the Nelson decision may set an important precedent to rein in another abusive civil proceeding: civil forfeiture. The parallels are striking"
- MaxfordAndSons 9y agoI don't see how though - this ruling is explicitly about a conviction which has been overturned. If there's never a conviction related to the forfeiture in the first place, what bearing would it have? Makes me wonder, could this ruling create a perverse situation where someone is arrested with a large sum of money, but the criminal case against the individual is flimsy, so the prosecution might be tempted to drop charges to ensure that the forfeiture can be kept rather than risk losing it if a conviction is overturned?
- CalChris 9y agoIt is about a conviction which has been overturned but the parallel is there. Civil forfeiture is when officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime. not guilty != convicted suspected != convicted If the bar is convicted (and it should be) then the argument will be the same.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Civil forfeiture is when officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime. Generally, not, as a matter of law. Civil forfeiture is usually premised on the item being gained through or used in illegal (though not necessarily criminal) activity, not necessarily by the owner (innocent parties with an interest in the property have some rights in forfeiture proceedings, separate from the right to assert that the basic premise of the forfeiture is false.) This often overlaps with the owner of the property being suspected of a crime, but being owned by someone who committed a crime is not generally the essence of the legal premise. That's quite distinct from what happened here, where the actual conviction is the legal premise, and thus the conviction being overturned voids the legal premise.
- felipelemos 9y agoWhat surprises me is - even for just 1 vote against - it was not a unanimous decision.
- dragonwriter 9y agoIt would surprise me, if the dissenter wasn't Thomas.
- rhizome 9y agoA little more of an educated take from a couple weeks ago: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/opinion-analysis-states-cant-keep-money-collect-pursuant-subsequently-overturned-convictions/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/opinion-analysis-states-ca...
- OliverJones 9y agoSarah Stillman wrote up civil forfeiture in The New Yorker in the summer of 2013. John Oliver's TV piece on the topic must have drawn heavily from this article. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
- rayiner 9y agoThe article does a piss-poor job of actually framing the issue that was decided: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nelson-v-colorado http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nelson-v-colorado. In particular, the article's characterization of the question presented is so hand-wavy that it makes the dissent seem incomprehensible. To understand Thomas's logic, start with Section I of the dissent: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf. Thomas is not saying that the state should be able to "keep money from the innocent." Thomas's reasoning is roughly the following: 1) The 14th amendment requires the government to give you adequate process before depriving you of a property right. 2) At the time petitioner was convicted, he paid over a sum of money to the state. He lost the property right in that money, and the state gained the property right in that money. 3) After the conviction was overturned on appeal, the state required petitioner to go through a process to get his money back. Petitioner alleges that the process was inadequate under the 14th amendment. 4) To make a 14th amendment deprivation claim, you have to show deprivation of a property right. At the time petitioner sought his money back, he had no property right. That transferred to the state under step (2). 5) Thomas asks: where is the property right that is the basis for the 14th amendment claim? It can't come from the 14th amendment itself, because that only comes into play once petitioner has a property right. To get around (5), you can theorize that the initial payment automagically become null-and-void when the conviction was vacated. But that would be an unusual result, because legal judgments don't ordinarily have that kind of effect. Say you buy some property, then sue the seller and get a judgment saying you overpaid. You can assert that judgment against the seller to collect, but at most the judgment means the seller owes you money back, it does not automatically transfer the property right in some of the money you paid back to you. I think the majority is right in that the overall effect of the Colorado law would be a due process violation. But the majority's reasoning kind of requires thinking of the whole process as a black box and not thinking too hard about what happens inside.
- sjtgraham 9y agoThanks for explaining this. In my laypersons opinion I think this outcome is the just one, although I appreciate the dissent as a logical argument. Does something similar to the UK rules of statutory interpretation exist in US law with respect to the US Constitution to prevent absurd outcomes? like the dissenting outcome (IMO) would have been?
- inlined 9y ago> Ali had previously sold the Chevy but still held title to it and it was registered in his name. When the buyer was arrested for a DWI and drug possession, police seized the truck and filed a civil forfeiture action against it, even though Ali was not involved. In order to regain his Chevy, Ali was asked to prove his innocence. If Ali sold the car but kept the title what the heck did he "sell"? This sounds like a poor defense against civil forfeiture. It seems like he'd have to claim he cheated the person he sold the car in order to assert ownership. I wouldn't want to touch that case either.