4 ms·

> "...whether petitioners can show a substantive entitlement to a return of the money they paid pursuant to criminal convictions that were later reversed or vac

> "...whether petitioners can show a substantive entitlement to a return of the money they paid pursuant to criminal convictions that were later reversed or vacated." In other words, the petitioners can't prove that they have a legal right to a refund. Apparently there is no Colorado law saying that if your conviction is overturned, the state will refund those fees. That would be a fairly easy legislative fix, rather than inventing the right from thin air via this majority SCOTUS decision.

MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
> That would be a fairly easy legislative fix, rather than inventing the right from thin air via this majority SCOTUS decision. Sure, but there's probably no incentive for legislatures to implement this fix. The loophole enriches their constituent law enforcement organizations, while also relaxing their budgetary needs. And most private citizens probably aren't going to care much either way, especially since the loophole can be framed as pro-law and order. So if the law as written is encouraging abusive behavior from law enforcement, and the legislative incentives are misaligned to prevent the easy fix, how else could it get fixed?
- bkeroack 9y ago
  > Sure, but there's probably no incentive for legislatures to implement this fix The incentive is the same as the incentive for them to do anything: democratic process and popular pressure. If this is such a no-brainer it should have wide support among Colorado voters. This is much better than having unelected federal judges thousands of miles away declare the issue by fiat. > The loophole enriches their constituent law enforcement organizations A. It's not a "loophole", it's simply the lack of any explicit law directing refunds. B. I'm not familiar with Colorado state finances, but I seriously doubt that refunds from vacated convictions would have any significant budgetary impact at all. > ...if the law as written is encouraging abusive behavior from law enforcement Again, this isn't "abusive behavior". It's simply lack of a law authorizing what the petitioners demand. I wouldn't be surprised if it was simply that nobody thought to write and pass the law, given the relative rarity of vacated convictions.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Supreme Court judges are elected by the same lawmakers that write laws in the first place. Their rulings also cover more than just one state. So, this patches a wide range of laws not just for that specific state, but every state and federal law. Further, the democratic process and popular pressure has little impact on most laws. The context is first personal conviction as most bills have minimal impact on getting elected, next attention as bills are mostly to long and complex to read and understand in their entirety. Sure, a bill might only be ~200,000 words, but this is a diff that's updating other complex legislation which will then get applied in a huge range of complex situations. So, honestly having a small group which can debug the law in response to specific escalations is not only reasonable, but also vital.
  - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
    > It's not a "loophole", it's simply the lack of any explicit law That's literally the definition of a loophole - something the letter of law fails to account for, but the spirit of the law would have intended to cover. I was writing in a pragmatic register, not a legal one. You can't consider the ethical/practical consequences of the law using only formal legal language - there's no legal definition of what constitutes a loophole in the law, nor could there possibly be. > Again, this isn't "abusive behavior". Again, not referring to a legal standard of abuse. If you were arrested and wrongly convicted, had all your assets seized, and then had your conviction vacated but the state refused to return your property, would you feel abused?
dragonwriter 9y ago
There is no right invented from "thin air". The money was taken premised on a criminal conviction. The conviction was reversed on review, which means it was not a valid conviction (this isn't a pardon or other act negating the effect of a valid conviction, it's a legal act determining the validity of the conviction.) The premise which justified taking the property was invalid, thus the state had no legal basis to deprive the victim of property. Now, if this was a question of the personal liability of agents of the state in taking the money, the fact that they had a reasonable good faith belief that they acted based on a a valid legal premise would probably be a valid point, if governmental immunity didn't make it moot in the first place. But this isn't about that.

MaxfordAndSons 9y ago

> That would be a fairly easy legislative fix, rather than inventing the right from thin air via this majority SCOTUS decision. Sure, but there's probably no incentive for legislatures to implement this fix. The loophole enriches their constituent law enforcement organizations, while also relaxing their budgetary needs. And most private citizens probably aren't going to care much either way, especially since the loophole can be framed as pro-law and order. So if the law as written is encouraging abusive behavior from law enforcement, and the legislative incentives are misaligned to prevent the easy fix, how else could it get fixed?

bkeroack 9y ago
> Sure, but there's probably no incentive for legislatures to implement this fix The incentive is the same as the incentive for them to do anything: democratic process and popular pressure. If this is such a no-brainer it should have wide support among Colorado voters. This is much better than having unelected federal judges thousands of miles away declare the issue by fiat. > The loophole enriches their constituent law enforcement organizations A. It's not a "loophole", it's simply the lack of any explicit law directing refunds. B. I'm not familiar with Colorado state finances, but I seriously doubt that refunds from vacated convictions would have any significant budgetary impact at all. > ...if the law as written is encouraging abusive behavior from law enforcement Again, this isn't "abusive behavior". It's simply lack of a law authorizing what the petitioners demand. I wouldn't be surprised if it was simply that nobody thought to write and pass the law, given the relative rarity of vacated convictions.
- Retric 9y ago
  Supreme Court judges are elected by the same lawmakers that write laws in the first place. Their rulings also cover more than just one state. So, this patches a wide range of laws not just for that specific state, but every state and federal law. Further, the democratic process and popular pressure has little impact on most laws. The context is first personal conviction as most bills have minimal impact on getting elected, next attention as bills are mostly to long and complex to read and understand in their entirety. Sure, a bill might only be ~200,000 words, but this is a diff that's updating other complex legislation which will then get applied in a huge range of complex situations. So, honestly having a small group which can debug the law in response to specific escalations is not only reasonable, but also vital.
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  > It's not a "loophole", it's simply the lack of any explicit law That's literally the definition of a loophole - something the letter of law fails to account for, but the spirit of the law would have intended to cover. I was writing in a pragmatic register, not a legal one. You can't consider the ethical/practical consequences of the law using only formal legal language - there's no legal definition of what constitutes a loophole in the law, nor could there possibly be. > Again, this isn't "abusive behavior". Again, not referring to a legal standard of abuse. If you were arrested and wrongly convicted, had all your assets seized, and then had your conviction vacated but the state refused to return your property, would you feel abused?

dragonwriter 9y ago

There is no right invented from "thin air". The money was taken premised on a criminal conviction. The conviction was reversed on review, which means it was not a valid conviction (this isn't a pardon or other act negating the effect of a valid conviction, it's a legal act determining the validity of the conviction.) The premise which justified taking the property was invalid, thus the state had no legal basis to deprive the victim of property. Now, if this was a question of the personal liability of agents of the state in taking the money, the fact that they had a reasonable good faith belief that they acted based on a a valid legal premise would probably be a valid point, if governmental immunity didn't make it moot in the first place. But this isn't about that.