5 ms·

Not sure why you were down voted, that is basically the entire second part of Thomas' legal dissent. 1. Colorado law doesn't provide for an automatic refund w

Not sure why you were down voted, that is basically the entire second part of Thomas' legal dissent. 1. Colorado law doesn't provide for an automatic refund when convictions are overturned, rather Colorado law provides a process and the defendant's didn't attempt to use the process (Therefore, no Constitutional violation in application of this law); 2. The Defendants here already lost their property rights, and so the Due Process Clause of the Constitution does not apply (Colorado doesn't need to provide any process to refund, so we don't need to even look at the Colorado Law to determine if the process is Unconstitutional).

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I try not to read too much into why I got a downvote anymore. Maybe it's because people disagree with Thomas' opinion. Maybe it's because they think I read it poorly or said something technically incorrect (which is likely). For all I know, they saw an earlier comment of mine, disagreed, but couldn't downvote it and came and downvoted my most recent comment instead. Who knows, it happens. People on the Internet are baffling.
pishpash 9y ago
Well, 1 is pendant on 2. If 2 is invalid then 1 is also irrelevant. It is really hard to argue that the defendants have lost their property rights or that a contractually legal property transfer occurred. It was "seized" after all.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  If the seizure was legally conducted based on the law, then ownership of the property in question arguably has been transferred. Obviously asset seizure in itself is not illegal. And so Thomas' argument hinges on the concept that since it's no longer their property, they have no Constitutional rights regarding it's return. I don't think it's a wholly invalid point, even if the result is terrible. And obviously the rest of the court decided to lean in favor of the common man, which I think is a general good.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Well, the state has to release their bodies upon the overturning of their conviction. If the point is not wholly invalid then can the state also continue to hold their bodies until they sue through some body restitution law -- habeas corpus? Clearly not.
    - will_brown 9y ago
      Liberty and property are clearly different in practice. Say you were arrested for holding me up at gun point and robbing me of $100, you are arrested and convicted and ordered to pay me back the $100 which you did. On appeal the conviction is overturned because of some technicality. even though you actually did rob me, there is no question your liberty will be restored (set free), but the question is should property be lumped right into that fold and I be ordered to give you back the $100? 7-1 the Justice's believe a law requiring you to prove you were innocent in order to get the money is unconstitutional. Thomas the lone dissent thinks once you give me the $100 that $100 is no longer yours so due process doesn't apply and the state was free to pass their own law to provide a process for these instances.
- will_brown 9y ago
  I am making a hypothetical, but say: 1. You break into my house and steal my iPad and it's not covered by insurance; 2. You are convicted based on your own confession and as part of the sentence you are ordered to pay court costs and restitution (replace my iPad); 3. This is where it begins to get tricky: a. You might pay the court in cash and with a check at sentencing; b. Maybe upon your arrest you posted bail to be released, this could be a 100% cash bail held by the Court/sheriff/etc (based on local rule) and upon the sentence they deduct the court cost automatically and return the rest (not exactly a seizure) I don't think the can withhold the restitution (iPad amount) so I would still have to try to get that from you, which you may or may not pay c. This is not an exhaustive list of possibilities you might pay 10% to a bondsman and he posts with the court and they won't deduct costs from them; you might never post bond because the judge let you out ROR or maybe didn't allow bail (unlikely); and like in this case their case there was some jail account; etc... 4. Trickier still is if you elect to pay me, then appeal and conviction is overturned because the confession was given after you asked for your lawyer and should have been suppressed; 5. The state law says because you were convicted and paid me and the court you must now prove you are innocent to get your money back, you claim that is unconstitutional and the court: the majority says: you are right that is unconstitutional and you should get your money back without having to prove you were innocent Thomas says: under such a situation the constitution is quite and so the state is allowed, but doesn't have to, make a law on point, which they did in this case. in truth I'm not sure if he took the step to see if the law on its face or as applied is constitutional because the defendants never attempted to use the process

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

I try not to read too much into why I got a downvote anymore. Maybe it's because people disagree with Thomas' opinion. Maybe it's because they think I read it poorly or said something technically incorrect (which is likely). For all I know, they saw an earlier comment of mine, disagreed, but couldn't downvote it and came and downvoted my most recent comment instead. Who knows, it happens. People on the Internet are baffling.

pishpash 9y ago

Well, 1 is pendant on 2. If 2 is invalid then 1 is also irrelevant. It is really hard to argue that the defendants have lost their property rights or that a contractually legal property transfer occurred. It was "seized" after all.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
If the seizure was legally conducted based on the law, then ownership of the property in question arguably has been transferred. Obviously asset seizure in itself is not illegal. And so Thomas' argument hinges on the concept that since it's no longer their property, they have no Constitutional rights regarding it's return. I don't think it's a wholly invalid point, even if the result is terrible. And obviously the rest of the court decided to lean in favor of the common man, which I think is a general good.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Well, the state has to release their bodies upon the overturning of their conviction. If the point is not wholly invalid then can the state also continue to hold their bodies until they sue through some body restitution law -- habeas corpus? Clearly not.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    Liberty and property are clearly different in practice. Say you were arrested for holding me up at gun point and robbing me of $100, you are arrested and convicted and ordered to pay me back the $100 which you did. On appeal the conviction is overturned because of some technicality. even though you actually did rob me, there is no question your liberty will be restored (set free), but the question is should property be lumped right into that fold and I be ordered to give you back the $100? 7-1 the Justice's believe a law requiring you to prove you were innocent in order to get the money is unconstitutional. Thomas the lone dissent thinks once you give me the $100 that $100 is no longer yours so due process doesn't apply and the state was free to pass their own law to provide a process for these instances.
will_brown 9y ago
I am making a hypothetical, but say: 1. You break into my house and steal my iPad and it's not covered by insurance; 2. You are convicted based on your own confession and as part of the sentence you are ordered to pay court costs and restitution (replace my iPad); 3. This is where it begins to get tricky: a. You might pay the court in cash and with a check at sentencing; b. Maybe upon your arrest you posted bail to be released, this could be a 100% cash bail held by the Court/sheriff/etc (based on local rule) and upon the sentence they deduct the court cost automatically and return the rest (not exactly a seizure) I don't think the can withhold the restitution (iPad amount) so I would still have to try to get that from you, which you may or may not pay c. This is not an exhaustive list of possibilities you might pay 10% to a bondsman and he posts with the court and they won't deduct costs from them; you might never post bond because the judge let you out ROR or maybe didn't allow bail (unlikely); and like in this case their case there was some jail account; etc... 4. Trickier still is if you elect to pay me, then appeal and conviction is overturned because the confession was given after you asked for your lawyer and should have been suppressed; 5. The state law says because you were convicted and paid me and the court you must now prove you are innocent to get your money back, you claim that is unconstitutional and the court: the majority says: you are right that is unconstitutional and you should get your money back without having to prove you were innocent Thomas says: under such a situation the constitution is quite and so the state is allowed, but doesn't have to, make a law on point, which they did in this case. in truth I'm not sure if he took the step to see if the law on its face or as applied is constitutional because the defendants never attempted to use the process