4 ms·
It might be legal. It might not. The problem is this needs to be challenged in court. Until the Supremes rule on this, it's all speculation. That said, I've ne
by cjensen 9y ago
It might be legal. It might not.
The problem is this needs to be challenged in court. Until the Supremes rule on this, it's all speculation. That said, I've never even heard a theory stated in support of why it might be lawful.
- turc1656 9y agoThe theory behind it's lawfulness is that property doesn't have rights. That's why when the property is taken, the cases are named things like "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" or "State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix". Those are real case names, BTW. They basically separate property from the person owning it with the argument that the property itself is guilty because it was used in commission of a crime, with or without the owner's knowledge. I didn't say it was a good theory. But that's basically what is boils down to. Personally, I find it repugnant and I do believe it is an egregious violation of our constitutional rights related to search and seizure. Also, the USSC has already ruled in part on this issue and the opinion was not great: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-122_1b7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-122_1b7d.pdf Not only did they generally uphold the practice, but they weaseled out of ruling on other parts of it (not unusual for the USSC), this time because part of the argument presented was only first presented to the USSC and no lower court. So they basically said that since that other stuff hadn't seen a lower court, they weren't commenting on it.