4 ms·

This is a huge step forwards. I only hope asset forfiture is next.

dvdhnt 9y ago
Agreed; 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 ago
  From 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 ago
I'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 ago
  There 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 ago
  It'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 ago
I 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    My 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
I 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 ago
Agreed. Far too many reports of abuse of civil forfeiture.

Agreed; 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 ago
From 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 ago

I'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 ago
There 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 ago
It'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 ago

I 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 ago
I'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 ago
  My 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 ago
  Yes, 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 ago

I 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 ago

Agreed. Far too many reports of abuse of civil forfeiture.