17 ms·

U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

575 points by wcbeard10 8y ago

tbirrell 8y ago
Unfortunately, in the past, the SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture cases. But since Justice Thomas has spoken against it, I am cautiously optimistic that this might be the time that they rule in favor of the citizen. Civil asset forfeiture has gotten way out of hand. We really need some sort of precedent to start curbing the flagrant abuse we are seeing all over the country.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- eric_h 8y ago
  > SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture cases Has SCOTUS ruled on an asset forfeiture case before?
  - briandear 8y ago
    United States v. Ursery, No. 95-345
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  My thoughts exactly. Thomas is, clearly, more on the law-and-order side of the current court, and his opinion (or the part of it quoted in this article anyway) sounded pretty negative on the practice, at least as it currently exists. It doesn't seem like he would have written in favor of taking the case if he wanted to stay with the status quo. But, I am not a lawyer.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    To be fair, civil forfeiture is against the law, so being on the law-and-order side is a good thing. Law-and-order also means applying law and order to the government.
archon 8y ago
I'm worried that because this is a case in which the defendant actually did deal drugs, the court will rule in favor of the civil forfeiture laws and the SC case will then be used as a precedent to justify broader use of civil forfeiture. But IANAL, so maybe the danger isn't as big as I fear.
- menacingly 8y ago
  In my mind, this is more a risk with smaller courts and SCOTUS exists on a higher plane. In my mind.
- axaxs 8y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. There are tons of examples of forfeiture happening because of 'assumed illegality', especially when it comes to having money on you - that could have been a better way for the SC to strike it down harshly. I still don't agree with it in this case, but I don't think it helps the case that he did sell Heroin, which is a sore subject these days.
- dmitrygr 8y ago
  You should read a little bit more about this case. The actual question the Supreme Court is deciding here is whether the 8th amendment applies to rulings issued by state courts. Something that should be seemingly obvious but it's actually not entirely settled in existing case law.
- downandout 8y ago
  You're correct that this isn't really the type of case that will set a precedent for the most troublesome applications of civil forfeiture. I wish cases like these [1] would reach the Supreme Court. In one of those cases, a man that had just won $50,000 in cash from a casino had it seized, even though he wasn't cited for a traffic offense or charged with any crime. It would be nice if legislators simply outlawed the practice, but the political will doesn't exist. A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/cops-use-traffic-stops-to-seize-millions-from-drivers-never-charged-with-a-crime/#32352dfdf54b https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/...
Meekro 8y ago
It would be great to see the Supreme Court take up one of the more egregious cases involving huge cash seizures from people with no criminal record, and where there is no evidence that a crime took place. Unfortunately, most of those are eventually settled by the government. In this case there is little doubt that the target was dealing drugs, prompting one judge to write that "one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself." The only issue is whether the seizure was excessive, and there will always be judges who think that no punishment is too great for a proven heroin dealer.
- briandear 8y ago
  Even if they have a criminal record, that isn’t probable cause.
docker_up 8y ago
The fact that this monstrosity of justice has continued, even under presidents such as Obama, make me so angry and upset. It's exactly what happens when you let the police do whatever they want, without someone to curtail their behavior. Unfettered power equals unfettered corruption, and the fact this keeps occurring in 2018 is astounding and upsetting.
- smsm42 8y ago
  Obama never showed any desire to curtail executive powers. In fact, he was championing exactly the opposite approach - that executive has the power to produce new regulatory legislation and ignore existing legislation they don't like, as soon as they perceive Congress does not do what they want it to do. No wonder Obama did nothing for civil forfeiture reform - that would be the exact opposite of his policy of infinite executive powers. His administration was not just ignoring forfeiture abuse - it was actively encouraging it, e.g. by means of infamous "equitable sharing" program, that allows the law enforcement to directly profit from seized property: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-doj-sets-back-justice-with-asset-forfeiture-program https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-do... Saying forfeiture abuse proliferated "even under Obama" is like saying even under Rod Blagojevich corruption proliferated in Illinois. Not exactly a surprise.
  - docker_up 8y ago
    You would think a professor in Constitutional Law would be eager to plug a whole that the police were taking advantage of, namely suing the money instead of suing the person. Yet all there was was deafening silence. So disappointing when people don't see things like this.
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy [1] presents a problem for anyone seeking to rectify the problem of an organization having too much power. In order to fix the problem, you first need power, which means that you need to create the institutional structures needed to secure that power, which means you have just exacerbated the problem. If you then actually follow-through with your original goal, nobody will listen to you, because you have (by definition) removed your power. More pithily, "Organizations whose top priority is not the continued existence of the organization are replaced by organizations whose top priority is." The only way to fix an organization that's outgrown its social purpose is for that organization to fail, outright, and then have its functions subsumed by other entities outside of the organization that can pick up the pieces. Sometimes the failure comes from internal dysfunction, sometimes it comes from external competition, but most of the time it's a mix of both, as internal dysfunction drives away competent insiders who then form the locus of external resistance. [1] https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
defen 8y ago
I think I understand the logic of civil forfeiture, but what is the justification for seizing a $40,000 vehicle when the state has only proven (according to the article) that he sold about $225 worth of drugs? It says he plead guilty to one charge - was the other for a significantly larger amount, that he was perhaps convicted of? Based on the info presented in the article it would seem difficult to argue that he acquired the Land Rover with ill-gotten funds.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  The justification is the police department gets to sell the vehicle and use the cash. And sometimes they can use that for parties. Providing police with more toys is the justification for the theft of property. 1. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-bought-with-civil-forfeiture-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-bought-with... 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/cops-in-texas-seize-millions-by-policing-for-profit https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/...
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Article states that both the Land Rover and the drugs were purchased using the payout from a life insurance policy. It is unclear whether any of the drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price. As I recall, the whole concept of civil asset forfeiture was originally to discourage crime by removing the profit from criminal activity when the property was at hand, but the owner was outside the jurisdiction or otherwise unreachable. The long history of forfeiture is mostly seizing the property because the actual criminal was untouchable. It has since morphed into cops acting as highwaymen to fund their activities beyond the bounds of their regular budget. In this case, the alleged criminal was actually charged, in custody, given due process criminally, and fined. The cops, not satisfied with the fines already levied, stole his car, too. In my non-lawyerly opinion, if the Supreme Court would like for forfeiture to continue largely unchanged, they should reverse and return the guy's car, and cite so many case specifics that this would be practically useless as precedent. If they confirm, there is a chance that public backlash will eliminate forfeiture through legislatures. If they reverse on principles rather than specifics, that would set precedent easily usable by everyone better respected than a heroin dealer. I hope for the latter, but I don't think the current court has the right makeup to tear the filthy entrails out of forfeiture.
balozi 8y ago
I'm calling it now: 6-3. Thomas, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in the six. Thomas has made his position clear about this in the past, Roberts sensibilities are often libertarian, and the others are liberals.
- briandear 8y ago
  However, liberals upheld forfeiture in United States v. Ursery, 1996. The only dissent in that case was Stevens.
  - 0xcde4c3db 8y ago
    I'm not familiar with Ursery and have only skimmed a few sources, but I saw nothing suggesting that the legality of civil forfeiture per se was even disputed in that case. If I read Stevens's dissent correctly, it challenges only the constitutionality of one of the involved criminal cases, arguing that because the previously seized property did not represent proceeds of a crime, the perpetrator had a legitimate property right of which the government had deprived him. Therefore, the forfeiture already served as a punishment for the crime, so double jeopardy precludes a subsequent criminal trial on the same offense. I'd be interested in knowing if I'm missing something important here.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Wouldn't liberals be pro-forfeiture?
  - GavinMcG 8y ago
    No? "Liberal" doesn't mean "pro-government". What definition are you using that suggests they would?
    - cuckcuckspruce 8y ago
      The colloquial definition used by most of the US citizenry and on television news programs on both 24-hour cable networks and broadcast television. That doesn't make that definition correct...
Someone1234 8y ago
Civil Forfeiture is essentially "guilty until proven innocent." And I don't mean that hyperbolically, I mean literally if the state takes property or cash under Civil Forfeiture you have to prove your property innocent to get it returned (via expensive civil litigation). That means that they can seize property or cash under a certain value with near impunity because the cost of recovering it is greater than the cost of the goods themselves. This makes it a fantastic tool against the poor, since they'll have no real remedies. You only really started to hear about Civil Forfeiture once the police started going too far and taking things from the wealthy or powerful, but they've been at this for years, take vehicles from accused but un-prosecuted "drug dealers."
- RIMR 8y ago
  What's worse is they don't even need a shred of evidence to take your stuff. In some states, having more than $10,000 in cash on your person is automatically considered "evidence of criminal activity". That means that the police, just by seeing that you have more than $10k in cash, can simply seize it and then force you to spend your time and additional money proving that the money didn't come from crime. And, of course, every cent of the cash they take goes to their own department, so they are incentivized to look for cash during traffic stops just so they can literally commit highway robbery... It's also not unusual for an officer to record that they found $15k in cash, only for the person they seized it from to call foul, stating that they had more. Since there is literally nothing protecting the citizen in this situation, they are left without any legal remedy, and the cop gets to pocket your cash for his own illicit purposes. This is a system that encourages corruption with the justification of profit.
  - slowburning 8y ago
    In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)
    - VectorLock 8y ago
jedberg 8y ago
What I've learned recently is that most people only read headlines when it comes to Supreme Court cases, and the headlines are written to be intentionally misleading. Most Supreme Court cases have a lot of nuance to them that most people miss. For example, in this thread, people keep saying that United States v. Ursery upheld Civil Forfeiture, but it did no such thing. The case was about whether CF is a criminal punishment for double-jeopardy, but it did not address the legality of CF itself. In this case, they are also not directly deciding on CF. They are deciding on whether the 8th amendment applies to the States based on the 14th amendment. If they decide that it does, then the case goes back to the Indiana Supreme Court, who will have to decide if the fine is excessive, like the lower courts found. But every other civil forfeiture case will still have to argue in a court whether the forfeiture counts as an excessive fine.
- unholiness 8y ago
  You seem to have a more accurate perspective on this case than most of the comments. Thank you for posting. But I'm still confused on one point: It seems like the supreme court has already ruled that the 8th Amendment applies to the states in Roper v. Simmons[0], Robinson v. California [1], and others. To me this pretty directly means that a state law dictating a cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. So if supreme court isn't deciding whether cruel and unusual punishments at the state level are unconstitutional in general (a previous ruling), and it isn't deciding whether this specific civil forfeiture was cruel and unusual (a decision to be made by the state court), what exactly are they deciding? Is there some unplugged hole in the middle, like whether any CF case (regardless of details) could be cruel and unusual? Or is there some other reason that the previous rulings don't apply here? [0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633 [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/554 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/554
  - greenleafjacob 8y ago
    You can track the progress of the case through SCOTUSBlog [1] with associated filings like the writ of certiorari [2]. The precise question presented in this case is: > Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment [1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-indiana/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-indiana/ [2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180131162915070_Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20Timbs%20et%20al%20v%20State%20of%20Indiana.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180...
tzakrajs 8y ago
Cruel but not at all unusual.
rconti 8y ago
Judges Barnes' Appeals court dissent is perplexing: > “I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have exercised in some of these cases,” Judge Barnes wrote. “Entire family farms are sometimes forfeited based on one family member’s conduct, or exorbitant amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself.” --- He's, of course, well aware that the Land Rover is worth far more than the maximum fine was for the crime, so that's not what he meant by "the legal consequences to which he exposes himself". The only thing I can figure that he means is basically "tough luck, forfeiture exists on the books, you've exposed yourself to it, that's your bad." But saying "the law allows it" is hardly helpful when the issue at hand is (apparently) whether or not the law is constitutional. The only thing I can think is he felt his opinion was on the narrow facts of the case and not the broader constitutionality, or that case law had already settled this.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  This seems like judge-speak for "I can't relate to this guy and I don't have any sympathy for him, so screw him!"
apo 8y ago
It boggles the mind to think that forfeiture is alive and well today, some police departments even brag about the state-sponsored hooliganism they're committing, and the practice has never been seriously challenged in the Supreme Court. This looks to be the defense: The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Timbs, on interesting grounds. It said the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to ones imposed by states. From the 14th Amendment Section 1, it's disturbing that the following isn't obvious to any high school graduate: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Equally disturbing is the thought that Illinois might just win this case anyway. It's interesting to consider what might happen if reason prevails. A lot of people have lost a lot of property over the years to to forfeiture. I can't imagine all of them will pass on the opportunity for compensation and punishment.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  To start, I am totally horrified by civil forfeiture, so please no one construe this as defending it. But our personal opinions aside, I don't think the Indiana Supreme court decision is really very surprising from a legal perspective. The eight amendment is selectively incorporated and the excessive fines clause is not incorporated. The 14th amendment gave the courts the justification they needed to incorporate parts of the bill of rights, but for better or worse, not everything in the bill of rights has been incorporated yet, and there is nothing the Indiana supreme court can do about that. It would certainly exceed their legal jurisdiction for a state court to decide that a federal constitution amendment is incorporated. And while I hope this case prompts SCOTUS to fully incorporate the 8th amendment, we should also be demanding more of our state governments. Federalism gives states the power. The power to do bad, but also the power to do good. Why is that we so often have to depend on federal courts to protect our rights? Why don't the legislators of Indiana provide protections against excessive fines in their own constitution, and why do their citizens not demand it? We all want the SC to swoop in and save the day, but we should also face these questions and figure out what we need to do as a society to change this.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
newnewpdro 8y ago
Does anyone here happen to know if China has an equivalent to the practice of civil forfeiture?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
amluto 8y ago
I’m always surprised that civil forfeiture isn’t considered a violation of both the fourth and fifth amendments. The fifth amendment says “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation“, and the fourth requires probably cause to seize property. Civil forfeiture is somehow allowed without due process or probable cause. And the money kicks back to police departments, which is a clear public use, and there is definitely no just compensation.
tathougies 8y ago
I feel this will be an easy one for the supreme court.
Karishma1234 8y ago
If American people are not going to use 2nd ammendment over civil forfeiture then they don't need it.
asimpletune 8y ago
Can someone please argue the position of the side in favor of civil forfeiture?
- ericabiz 8y ago
  Although I don't agree with it, I am knowledgeable about the side in favor of civil forfeiture. (I grew up in Indiana, and my dad was an attorney there.) The "other side" says: Seizing Land Rovers from drug dealers helps fund underfunded rural police departments, and keeps them from having to raise taxes on law-abiding citizens. I have no doubt that every aspect of this viewpoint is debatable. However, that's the viewpoint, per your request.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    You could also charge a fee to everyone who calls 911. Seriously though. The police are a service provider who are employed by and act on behalf of all citizens. If we want functioning law enforcement, we should be willing to pay for it. We might not appreciate it on a daily basis, but functioning law enforcement saves individuals a lot of money. Imagine if they didn't exist and everyone had to to organise their own security.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Imagine if they didn't exist and everyone had to to organise their own security. In many locations this is effectively the situation. Police show up after crimes are over. Sometimes they help the victims of crime, sometimes they don't. The crimes that police interrupt are largely the victimless ones; after all there is no victim to report the crime so if they want to prosecute they had better catch the accused in the act. Somebody will say that this only appears to be the case because police have already put lots of criminals in prison. Since there are few criminals remaining, we don't have to worry so much about crimes happening now. I can't agree, at least in USA. Our prison population is 4-5 times what it should be. If they imprison multitudes, they don't get credit for the possibility that some of the imprisoned actually should be imprisoned.
- 8y ago
trumped 8y ago
I guess that they didn't steal enough money from the guy that is suing them...
Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
I've said this before in another thread and I'll reiterate it... A lot of Second Amendment advocates say we need the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Civil forfeiture is an excellent example of tyranny. If the Supreme Court decides it's legal, I better see an armed uprising.
vibrato 8y ago
As a poker player who routinely travels with thousands of dollars in cash, I really hope they fix this ridiculous situation.
dzonga 8y ago
Police and criminals no different. Only that the police is the mafia running a legal protection racket. All incentives are there for civil forfeiture. what drives human actions are incentives.
neurotech1 8y ago
John Oliver on Civil Forfeiture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
ccleve 8y ago
What bothers me about the article is that they say that the basis of the claim is the 8th Amendment ("excessive fines"). I hope that is not the only argument the lawyers made. The problem with relying on the 8th alone is that the word "excessive" is imprecise, and there's good reason for the Supreme Court to defer to local legislatures to define what it means, except in extreme cases. Deciding criminal penalties are normally within the powers of the state. I think the more important amendment is the 5th: ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."). This "takings" clause is what civil forfeiture is all about. The 5th Amendment has been fully incorporated, and is binding on the states: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine In cases where there is no rational connection to a crime (and there are many such cases), the taking can in no way be construed as a fine. If you look at the 5th and the 8th together to try to divine the intent of the founders, it's clear that they were trying to limit government overreach of exactly this kind. This case should be a slam dunk.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  Mandatory disclaimer that I think civil forfeiture sucks. While I agree with you personally, I think legally that would be very far from a slam dunk case. The situation in this case seems similar to the one in Bennis v. Michigan, where SCOTUS already ruled that the civil forfeiture did not violate the takings clause of the 5th amendment. So the 5A angle seems like a risky argument. On the other hand, the waters surrounding the 8th amendment are very murky. As recounted in the Indiana SC decision, their basis for determining that the excessive fines clause is unincorporated comes from the 2010 McDonald decision, a case that had nothing to do with the 8th amendment at all. It was only mentioned in passing, so this was not a holding but merely dictum. SCOTUS had previously said in dictum that the excessive fines clause was incorporated. So there hasn't been a full holding, plus two contradictory dictums in a relatively short period. That's fairly murky, whereas Bennis vs Michigan is basically clear with regards to the 5th amendment.
  - ccleve 8y ago
    Good catch. I just read the opinion in Bennis. The core of it is that the state may take property if the use of the property constitutes a public nuisance. If a ship is used for piracy or drug running, for example, then it can be taken. In Bennis, there was a car jointly owned by a husband and a wife. The husband used the car with a prostitute. The wife didn't know. The question before the court was if the state's taking of the car violated the wife's 5th amendment rights, because she owned half of it and had nothing to do with the crime. Almost the entirely of the opinion concerned whether an innocent owner could have property taken if the property had been used to commit a crime by someone else. The court held that yes, it could, and that wasn't a violation of the 5th amendment. Most of these civil forfeiture cases can be distinguished because the property taken usually wasn't used in the commission of a crime. People have had large amounts of cash taken from them even though they did nothing more than run a red light or drive too fast. In that case, the money can hardly been seen as having been an instrument of the crime. It's unfortunate that in this particular case, the druggie did use his car to transport and to buy and sell drugs. This isn't the best case to challenge civil asset forfeiture generally. Perhaps "excessive fines" is the best they'll be able to do. Although if the court is really enlightened, they'll distinguish between an asset which is primarily used for crime (a crack house or a pirate ship) and one which is used only in passing (like this car).
ada1981 8y ago
Can someone make an app that handles civil forfeiture appeals automatically? Input the location and get walked through questions and have the paperwork filed automatically. You could charge a percentage of the total value being claimed. Similar to the apps to fight parking tickets.
bmmayer1 8y ago
The fact that Clarence Thomas, widely considered to be the most conservative justice on the court, is on the record as being against the constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture is a really good sign that this shockingly still-legal tactic's days are numbered.
danschumann 8y ago
Cruel and unusual. It's not usual, because everyone has different stuff. Why should someone with a nice car be punished more than someone with no car? There is no justice there. It's cruel, because his car was for more than just the drugs. It's like chopping off someone's hand, because they stole with it- barbaric.
martin1975 8y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17210880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17210880 This is even more egregious. He will probably get it back eventually through much legal maneuvering but it shouldn't be this easy to screw up some poor soul's life because of a few bad apples this law was enacted for, namely hard to impossible to prosecute drug cartels. These forfeiture laws are basically hammers turning every case into a nail, regardless of merit.
ct520 8y ago
Feel like I should be hosting a reddit ama for this subject. 3x civil forfeiture victim chiming in. 3k 10k 48k Never charged with a crime. What would you like to know LOL.
- spookyuser 8y ago
  Out of curiosity, why were you carrying that much cash anyway?
  - ct520 8y ago
    Lol I didn’t exactly have a legal reason. But definetly very legal in many states today. Just an entepneur a little ahead of his time I guess.
bunkydoo 8y ago
{Insert Worthless Opinion Here}
king_nothing 8y ago
Just FYI your freedom in the US can be revoked at anytime WITHOUT reasonable suspicion thanks to Reagan (5150; Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act 1972). This is the same actor whom closed California’s treatment facilities without having a replacement and later defunded all community mental health centers JFK promised, throwing millions of disabled people out into the cold and on the street, ostensibly being “kinder.”
s2g 8y ago
Can't wait for the 5-4 decision reaffirming civil forfeiture.
nicklaf 8y ago
I am appalled at the opinion of Judge Barnes: “I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have exercised in some of these cases,” Judge Barnes wrote. “Entire family farms are sometimes forfeited based on one family member’s conduct, or exorbitant amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself.” This sort of intersection between hard biological reality on the one hand (in this case, predictable consequence of highly addictive drugs), and the hard-nosed moralizing of a judge, reminds me of something Robert Sapolsky has been trying to impart about what we should give consideration to when looking for the ultimate sources of culpability when biological factors are involved, and whether or not we ought to see negative social behavior as a crime or a disease. Sapolsky has written a recent book about this topic, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  ...but he's talking about a dealer, not a user?
  - nicklaf 8y ago
    He was a user, though! And presumably became a dealer as a result (although this is not clear): Mr. Timbs’s habit started with an opioid addiction and progressed to heroin. He used his Land Rover to get drugs and, on at least two occasions, to sell them. The buyers were undercover police officers.
jimt1234 8y ago
Sorry for the long post, but I have to tell this story, as I saw 'civil forfeiture' up-front-and-center 25 years ago. My college girlfriend and her family migrated from Mexico in the early 70's, worked their asses off and all became pretty successful. They mostly owned restaurants (pizza, not tacos), but other businesses, too. One of her brothers owned a chain of used car lots in Northern California. He was a hard-working dude, with a wife and two sons. One of her brother's auto-detailers got busted for possession of a small amount of marijuana, which back in 1992 was actually a crime. The local cops claimed that the detailer was dealing for her brother, who was using his dealerships to distribute drugs and launder the profits. They seized his car lots, all the cars, his house, and froze his bank accounts. All total, the cops seized around half-a-million of cash and assets. The DA refused to bring a case, mainly because (1) the detailer didn't even know her brother; he only worked at the shop for less than a month, (2) the detailer was busted for possession in his own apartment, no where near work, (3) the detailer originally said he sold drugs at the shop, however, taped interviews clearly showed the cops pressuring the detailer to say that; it was like watching a POW read a pre-written statement, and (4) there was simply no other evidence, nothing. The cops found no drugs and any of his lots or his home. The DA even criticized the local cops' behavior in his statement, dropping the case. The DA dropped the case and said the local cops screwed up, so her brother should get all his assets returned, right? Wrong. His legal issues were just getting started. Looking back, it's clear the cops never had any intention of a criminal case. Her brother sued to get his assets returned, but the system is all-in for the cops, and they know it. And they know how to work it. The cops' attorney would file for delays, demand ridiculous documentation, and just not show up to court appointments, causing more delays. For example, the cops' attorney argued about the value of the seized vehicles, and demanded that her brother have them appraised, however, he couldn't have access to the vehicles to do the appraisals because, after months of back-and-forth, it turns out that the vehicles were already distributed (sold at auction), just days after the initial forfeiture. It was even rumored that one of the cops gave one of the seized vehicles (a Mustang) to his girlfriend, less than a week after the initial forfeiture. Her brother also was not allowed access to his home where all of his records were kept, however, police were seen coming and going for months. Oh yeah, remember how the DA never filed the case? That was another thing the cops' attorney argued - basically, since there was never a criminal trial, her brother was never found not guilty and thus the cops didn't know if he was a drug dealer or not. They claimed their policy allowed them to return assets to those proven not guilty in court. See how that works? This whole back-and-forth process went on for over two years. I'm skipping A LOT of details. Finally, the police department offered $50,000, take it or leave it. Her brother's attorney advised he take it, noting that the situation would only get worse, the city was prepared to drag out the case indefinitely. He didn't get his house back, any of the vehicles, or his business - nothing. He took his money and moved back to Mexico with his wife and kids. He now owns a chain of restaurants - that's right, pizza. None of them even liked pizza. I always found that strange. LOL Anyone who supports 'civil forfeiture' has simply never seen the effects on innocent lives. The defense I hear all the time is "Who cares? They're all drug dealers.", or "I don't believe it. Why would the cops seize assets from an innocent person?", and "What's so difficult about getting your stuff back, after it was seized?" But I saw a good man's life destroyed by this horrible policy. I buried my anger/frustration about this for years, thinking this bad policy couldn't possibly last, but unfortunately I was wrong. It's only gotten worse over the last 25 years. A lot worse.
thefounder 8y ago
>> I don’t feel like much of a man, because I don’t have a vehicle. A bit off topic but someone should tell this guy that a LR doesn't make you more of a man, especially if you buy it using the life insurance of your father. The best for him would be to actually sell the LR(if he ever gets it back), buy car that he can afford and use the rest of the money to put his life in order.

575 points by wcbeard10 8y ago

Unfortunately, in the past, the SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture cases. But since Justice Thomas has spoken against it, I am cautiously optimistic that this might be the time that they rule in favor of the citizen. Civil asset forfeiture has gotten way out of hand. We really need some sort of precedent to start curbing the flagrant abuse we are seeing all over the country.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
eric_h 8y ago
> SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture cases Has SCOTUS ruled on an asset forfeiture case before?
- briandear 8y ago
  United States v. Ursery, No. 95-345
rossdavidh 8y ago
My thoughts exactly. Thomas is, clearly, more on the law-and-order side of the current court, and his opinion (or the part of it quoted in this article anyway) sounded pretty negative on the practice, at least as it currently exists. It doesn't seem like he would have written in favor of taking the case if he wanted to stay with the status quo. But, I am not a lawyer.
- tathougies 8y ago
  To be fair, civil forfeiture is against the law, so being on the law-and-order side is a good thing. Law-and-order also means applying law and order to the government.

archon 8y ago

I'm worried that because this is a case in which the defendant actually did deal drugs, the court will rule in favor of the civil forfeiture laws and the SC case will then be used as a precedent to justify broader use of civil forfeiture. But IANAL, so maybe the danger isn't as big as I fear.

menacingly 8y ago
In my mind, this is more a risk with smaller courts and SCOTUS exists on a higher plane. In my mind.
axaxs 8y ago
I was thinking the same thing. There are tons of examples of forfeiture happening because of 'assumed illegality', especially when it comes to having money on you - that could have been a better way for the SC to strike it down harshly. I still don't agree with it in this case, but I don't think it helps the case that he did sell Heroin, which is a sore subject these days.
dmitrygr 8y ago
You should read a little bit more about this case. The actual question the Supreme Court is deciding here is whether the 8th amendment applies to rulings issued by state courts. Something that should be seemingly obvious but it's actually not entirely settled in existing case law.
downandout 8y ago
You're correct that this isn't really the type of case that will set a precedent for the most troublesome applications of civil forfeiture. I wish cases like these [1] would reach the Supreme Court. In one of those cases, a man that had just won $50,000 in cash from a casino had it seized, even though he wasn't cited for a traffic offense or charged with any crime. It would be nice if legislators simply outlawed the practice, but the political will doesn't exist. A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/cops-use-traffic-stops-to-seize-millions-from-drivers-never-charged-with-a-crime/#32352dfdf54b https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/...

Meekro 8y ago

It would be great to see the Supreme Court take up one of the more egregious cases involving huge cash seizures from people with no criminal record, and where there is no evidence that a crime took place. Unfortunately, most of those are eventually settled by the government. In this case there is little doubt that the target was dealing drugs, prompting one judge to write that "one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself." The only issue is whether the seizure was excessive, and there will always be judges who think that no punishment is too great for a proven heroin dealer.

briandear 8y ago
Even if they have a criminal record, that isn’t probable cause.

docker_up 8y ago

The fact that this monstrosity of justice has continued, even under presidents such as Obama, make me so angry and upset. It's exactly what happens when you let the police do whatever they want, without someone to curtail their behavior. Unfettered power equals unfettered corruption, and the fact this keeps occurring in 2018 is astounding and upsetting.

smsm42 8y ago
Obama never showed any desire to curtail executive powers. In fact, he was championing exactly the opposite approach - that executive has the power to produce new regulatory legislation and ignore existing legislation they don't like, as soon as they perceive Congress does not do what they want it to do. No wonder Obama did nothing for civil forfeiture reform - that would be the exact opposite of his policy of infinite executive powers. His administration was not just ignoring forfeiture abuse - it was actively encouraging it, e.g. by means of infamous "equitable sharing" program, that allows the law enforcement to directly profit from seized property: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-doj-sets-back-justice-with-asset-forfeiture-program https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-do... Saying forfeiture abuse proliferated "even under Obama" is like saying even under Rod Blagojevich corruption proliferated in Illinois. Not exactly a surprise.
- docker_up 8y ago
  You would think a professor in Constitutional Law would be eager to plug a whole that the police were taking advantage of, namely suing the money instead of suing the person. Yet all there was was deafening silence. So disappointing when people don't see things like this.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy [1] presents a problem for anyone seeking to rectify the problem of an organization having too much power. In order to fix the problem, you first need power, which means that you need to create the institutional structures needed to secure that power, which means you have just exacerbated the problem. If you then actually follow-through with your original goal, nobody will listen to you, because you have (by definition) removed your power. More pithily, "Organizations whose top priority is not the continued existence of the organization are replaced by organizations whose top priority is." The only way to fix an organization that's outgrown its social purpose is for that organization to fail, outright, and then have its functions subsumed by other entities outside of the organization that can pick up the pieces. Sometimes the failure comes from internal dysfunction, sometimes it comes from external competition, but most of the time it's a mix of both, as internal dysfunction drives away competent insiders who then form the locus of external resistance. [1] https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

defen 8y ago

I think I understand the logic of civil forfeiture, but what is the justification for seizing a $40,000 vehicle when the state has only proven (according to the article) that he sold about $225 worth of drugs? It says he plead guilty to one charge - was the other for a significantly larger amount, that he was perhaps convicted of? Based on the info presented in the article it would seem difficult to argue that he acquired the Land Rover with ill-gotten funds.

kevin_b_er 8y ago
The justification is the police department gets to sell the vehicle and use the cash. And sometimes they can use that for parties. Providing police with more toys is the justification for the theft of property. 1. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-bought-with-civil-forfeiture-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-bought-with... 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/cops-in-texas-seize-millions-by-policing-for-profit https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/...
logfromblammo 8y ago
Article states that both the Land Rover and the drugs were purchased using the payout from a life insurance policy. It is unclear whether any of the drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price. As I recall, the whole concept of civil asset forfeiture was originally to discourage crime by removing the profit from criminal activity when the property was at hand, but the owner was outside the jurisdiction or otherwise unreachable. The long history of forfeiture is mostly seizing the property because the actual criminal was untouchable. It has since morphed into cops acting as highwaymen to fund their activities beyond the bounds of their regular budget. In this case, the alleged criminal was actually charged, in custody, given due process criminally, and fined. The cops, not satisfied with the fines already levied, stole his car, too. In my non-lawyerly opinion, if the Supreme Court would like for forfeiture to continue largely unchanged, they should reverse and return the guy's car, and cite so many case specifics that this would be practically useless as precedent. If they confirm, there is a chance that public backlash will eliminate forfeiture through legislatures. If they reverse on principles rather than specifics, that would set precedent easily usable by everyone better respected than a heroin dealer. I hope for the latter, but I don't think the current court has the right makeup to tear the filthy entrails out of forfeiture.

balozi 8y ago

I'm calling it now: 6-3. Thomas, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in the six. Thomas has made his position clear about this in the past, Roberts sensibilities are often libertarian, and the others are liberals.

briandear 8y ago
However, liberals upheld forfeiture in United States v. Ursery, 1996. The only dissent in that case was Stevens.
- 0xcde4c3db 8y ago
  I'm not familiar with Ursery and have only skimmed a few sources, but I saw nothing suggesting that the legality of civil forfeiture per se was even disputed in that case. If I read Stevens's dissent correctly, it challenges only the constitutionality of one of the involved criminal cases, arguing that because the previously seized property did not represent proceeds of a crime, the perpetrator had a legitimate property right of which the government had deprived him. Therefore, the forfeiture already served as a punishment for the crime, so double jeopardy precludes a subsequent criminal trial on the same offense. I'd be interested in knowing if I'm missing something important here.
conanbatt 8y ago
Wouldn't liberals be pro-forfeiture?
- GavinMcG 8y ago
  No? "Liberal" doesn't mean "pro-government". What definition are you using that suggests they would?
  - cuckcuckspruce 8y ago
    The colloquial definition used by most of the US citizenry and on television news programs on both 24-hour cable networks and broadcast television. That doesn't make that definition correct...

Someone1234 8y ago

Civil Forfeiture is essentially "guilty until proven innocent." And I don't mean that hyperbolically, I mean literally if the state takes property or cash under Civil Forfeiture you have to prove your property innocent to get it returned (via expensive civil litigation). That means that they can seize property or cash under a certain value with near impunity because the cost of recovering it is greater than the cost of the goods themselves. This makes it a fantastic tool against the poor, since they'll have no real remedies. You only really started to hear about Civil Forfeiture once the police started going too far and taking things from the wealthy or powerful, but they've been at this for years, take vehicles from accused but un-prosecuted "drug dealers."

RIMR 8y ago
What's worse is they don't even need a shred of evidence to take your stuff. In some states, having more than $10,000 in cash on your person is automatically considered "evidence of criminal activity". That means that the police, just by seeing that you have more than $10k in cash, can simply seize it and then force you to spend your time and additional money proving that the money didn't come from crime. And, of course, every cent of the cash they take goes to their own department, so they are incentivized to look for cash during traffic stops just so they can literally commit highway robbery... It's also not unusual for an officer to record that they found $15k in cash, only for the person they seized it from to call foul, stating that they had more. Since there is literally nothing protecting the citizen in this situation, they are left without any legal remedy, and the cop gets to pocket your cash for his own illicit purposes. This is a system that encourages corruption with the justification of profit.
- slowburning 8y ago
  In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)
  - VectorLock 8y ago

jedberg 8y ago

What I've learned recently is that most people only read headlines when it comes to Supreme Court cases, and the headlines are written to be intentionally misleading. Most Supreme Court cases have a lot of nuance to them that most people miss. For example, in this thread, people keep saying that United States v. Ursery upheld Civil Forfeiture, but it did no such thing. The case was about whether CF is a criminal punishment for double-jeopardy, but it did not address the legality of CF itself. In this case, they are also not directly deciding on CF. They are deciding on whether the 8th amendment applies to the States based on the 14th amendment. If they decide that it does, then the case goes back to the Indiana Supreme Court, who will have to decide if the fine is excessive, like the lower courts found. But every other civil forfeiture case will still have to argue in a court whether the forfeiture counts as an excessive fine.

unholiness 8y ago
You seem to have a more accurate perspective on this case than most of the comments. Thank you for posting. But I'm still confused on one point: It seems like the supreme court has already ruled that the 8th Amendment applies to the states in Roper v. Simmons[0], Robinson v. California [1], and others. To me this pretty directly means that a state law dictating a cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. So if supreme court isn't deciding whether cruel and unusual punishments at the state level are unconstitutional in general (a previous ruling), and it isn't deciding whether this specific civil forfeiture was cruel and unusual (a decision to be made by the state court), what exactly are they deciding? Is there some unplugged hole in the middle, like whether any CF case (regardless of details) could be cruel and unusual? Or is there some other reason that the previous rulings don't apply here? [0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633 [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/554 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/554
- greenleafjacob 8y ago
  You can track the progress of the case through SCOTUSBlog [1] with associated filings like the writ of certiorari [2]. The precise question presented in this case is: > Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment [1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-indiana/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-indiana/ [2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180131162915070_Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20Timbs%20et%20al%20v%20State%20of%20Indiana.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180...

tzakrajs 8y ago

Cruel but not at all unusual.

rconti 8y ago

Judges Barnes' Appeals court dissent is perplexing: > “I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have exercised in some of these cases,” Judge Barnes wrote. “Entire family farms are sometimes forfeited based on one family member’s conduct, or exorbitant amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself.” --- He's, of course, well aware that the Land Rover is worth far more than the maximum fine was for the crime, so that's not what he meant by "the legal consequences to which he exposes himself". The only thing I can figure that he means is basically "tough luck, forfeiture exists on the books, you've exposed yourself to it, that's your bad." But saying "the law allows it" is hardly helpful when the issue at hand is (apparently) whether or not the law is constitutional. The only thing I can think is he felt his opinion was on the narrow facts of the case and not the broader constitutionality, or that case law had already settled this.

jessaustin 8y ago
This seems like judge-speak for "I can't relate to this guy and I don't have any sympathy for him, so screw him!"

apo 8y ago

It boggles the mind to think that forfeiture is alive and well today, some police departments even brag about the state-sponsored hooliganism they're committing, and the practice has never been seriously challenged in the Supreme Court. This looks to be the defense: The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Timbs, on interesting grounds. It said the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to ones imposed by states. From the 14th Amendment Section 1, it's disturbing that the following isn't obvious to any high school graduate: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Equally disturbing is the thought that Illinois might just win this case anyway. It's interesting to consider what might happen if reason prevails. A lot of people have lost a lot of property over the years to to forfeiture. I can't imagine all of them will pass on the opportunity for compensation and punishment.

jaredklewis 8y ago
To start, I am totally horrified by civil forfeiture, so please no one construe this as defending it. But our personal opinions aside, I don't think the Indiana Supreme court decision is really very surprising from a legal perspective. The eight amendment is selectively incorporated and the excessive fines clause is not incorporated. The 14th amendment gave the courts the justification they needed to incorporate parts of the bill of rights, but for better or worse, not everything in the bill of rights has been incorporated yet, and there is nothing the Indiana supreme court can do about that. It would certainly exceed their legal jurisdiction for a state court to decide that a federal constitution amendment is incorporated. And while I hope this case prompts SCOTUS to fully incorporate the 8th amendment, we should also be demanding more of our state governments. Federalism gives states the power. The power to do bad, but also the power to do good. Why is that we so often have to depend on federal courts to protect our rights? Why don't the legislators of Indiana provide protections against excessive fines in their own constitution, and why do their citizens not demand it? We all want the SC to swoop in and save the day, but we should also face these questions and figure out what we need to do as a society to change this.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

newnewpdro 8y ago

Does anyone here happen to know if China has an equivalent to the practice of civil forfeiture?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

amluto 8y ago

I’m always surprised that civil forfeiture isn’t considered a violation of both the fourth and fifth amendments. The fifth amendment says “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation“, and the fourth requires probably cause to seize property. Civil forfeiture is somehow allowed without due process or probable cause. And the money kicks back to police departments, which is a clear public use, and there is definitely no just compensation.

tathougies 8y ago

I feel this will be an easy one for the supreme court.

Karishma1234 8y ago

If American people are not going to use 2nd ammendment over civil forfeiture then they don't need it.

asimpletune 8y ago

Can someone please argue the position of the side in favor of civil forfeiture?

ericabiz 8y ago
Although I don't agree with it, I am knowledgeable about the side in favor of civil forfeiture. (I grew up in Indiana, and my dad was an attorney there.) The "other side" says: Seizing Land Rovers from drug dealers helps fund underfunded rural police departments, and keeps them from having to raise taxes on law-abiding citizens. I have no doubt that every aspect of this viewpoint is debatable. However, that's the viewpoint, per your request.
- sjwright 8y ago
  You could also charge a fee to everyone who calls 911. Seriously though. The police are a service provider who are employed by and act on behalf of all citizens. If we want functioning law enforcement, we should be willing to pay for it. We might not appreciate it on a daily basis, but functioning law enforcement saves individuals a lot of money. Imagine if they didn't exist and everyone had to to organise their own security.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Imagine if they didn't exist and everyone had to to organise their own security. In many locations this is effectively the situation. Police show up after crimes are over. Sometimes they help the victims of crime, sometimes they don't. The crimes that police interrupt are largely the victimless ones; after all there is no victim to report the crime so if they want to prosecute they had better catch the accused in the act. Somebody will say that this only appears to be the case because police have already put lots of criminals in prison. Since there are few criminals remaining, we don't have to worry so much about crimes happening now. I can't agree, at least in USA. Our prison population is 4-5 times what it should be. If they imprison multitudes, they don't get credit for the possibility that some of the imprisoned actually should be imprisoned.
8y ago

trumped 8y ago

I guess that they didn't steal enough money from the guy that is suing them...

Sohcahtoa82 8y ago

I've said this before in another thread and I'll reiterate it... A lot of Second Amendment advocates say we need the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Civil forfeiture is an excellent example of tyranny. If the Supreme Court decides it's legal, I better see an armed uprising.

vibrato 8y ago

As a poker player who routinely travels with thousands of dollars in cash, I really hope they fix this ridiculous situation.

dzonga 8y ago

Police and criminals no different. Only that the police is the mafia running a legal protection racket. All incentives are there for civil forfeiture. what drives human actions are incentives.

neurotech1 8y ago

John Oliver on Civil Forfeiture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

ccleve 8y ago

What bothers me about the article is that they say that the basis of the claim is the 8th Amendment ("excessive fines"). I hope that is not the only argument the lawyers made. The problem with relying on the 8th alone is that the word "excessive" is imprecise, and there's good reason for the Supreme Court to defer to local legislatures to define what it means, except in extreme cases. Deciding criminal penalties are normally within the powers of the state. I think the more important amendment is the 5th: ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."). This "takings" clause is what civil forfeiture is all about. The 5th Amendment has been fully incorporated, and is binding on the states: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine In cases where there is no rational connection to a crime (and there are many such cases), the taking can in no way be construed as a fine. If you look at the 5th and the 8th together to try to divine the intent of the founders, it's clear that they were trying to limit government overreach of exactly this kind. This case should be a slam dunk.

jaredklewis 8y ago
Mandatory disclaimer that I think civil forfeiture sucks. While I agree with you personally, I think legally that would be very far from a slam dunk case. The situation in this case seems similar to the one in Bennis v. Michigan, where SCOTUS already ruled that the civil forfeiture did not violate the takings clause of the 5th amendment. So the 5A angle seems like a risky argument. On the other hand, the waters surrounding the 8th amendment are very murky. As recounted in the Indiana SC decision, their basis for determining that the excessive fines clause is unincorporated comes from the 2010 McDonald decision, a case that had nothing to do with the 8th amendment at all. It was only mentioned in passing, so this was not a holding but merely dictum. SCOTUS had previously said in dictum that the excessive fines clause was incorporated. So there hasn't been a full holding, plus two contradictory dictums in a relatively short period. That's fairly murky, whereas Bennis vs Michigan is basically clear with regards to the 5th amendment.
- ccleve 8y ago
  Good catch. I just read the opinion in Bennis. The core of it is that the state may take property if the use of the property constitutes a public nuisance. If a ship is used for piracy or drug running, for example, then it can be taken. In Bennis, there was a car jointly owned by a husband and a wife. The husband used the car with a prostitute. The wife didn't know. The question before the court was if the state's taking of the car violated the wife's 5th amendment rights, because she owned half of it and had nothing to do with the crime. Almost the entirely of the opinion concerned whether an innocent owner could have property taken if the property had been used to commit a crime by someone else. The court held that yes, it could, and that wasn't a violation of the 5th amendment. Most of these civil forfeiture cases can be distinguished because the property taken usually wasn't used in the commission of a crime. People have had large amounts of cash taken from them even though they did nothing more than run a red light or drive too fast. In that case, the money can hardly been seen as having been an instrument of the crime. It's unfortunate that in this particular case, the druggie did use his car to transport and to buy and sell drugs. This isn't the best case to challenge civil asset forfeiture generally. Perhaps "excessive fines" is the best they'll be able to do. Although if the court is really enlightened, they'll distinguish between an asset which is primarily used for crime (a crack house or a pirate ship) and one which is used only in passing (like this car).

ada1981 8y ago

Can someone make an app that handles civil forfeiture appeals automatically? Input the location and get walked through questions and have the paperwork filed automatically. You could charge a percentage of the total value being claimed. Similar to the apps to fight parking tickets.

bmmayer1 8y ago

The fact that Clarence Thomas, widely considered to be the most conservative justice on the court, is on the record as being against the constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture is a really good sign that this shockingly still-legal tactic's days are numbered.

danschumann 8y ago

Cruel and unusual. It's not usual, because everyone has different stuff. Why should someone with a nice car be punished more than someone with no car? There is no justice there. It's cruel, because his car was for more than just the drugs. It's like chopping off someone's hand, because they stole with it- barbaric.

martin1975 8y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17210880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17210880 This is even more egregious. He will probably get it back eventually through much legal maneuvering but it shouldn't be this easy to screw up some poor soul's life because of a few bad apples this law was enacted for, namely hard to impossible to prosecute drug cartels. These forfeiture laws are basically hammers turning every case into a nail, regardless of merit.

ct520 8y ago

Feel like I should be hosting a reddit ama for this subject. 3x civil forfeiture victim chiming in. 3k 10k 48k Never charged with a crime. What would you like to know LOL.

spookyuser 8y ago
Out of curiosity, why were you carrying that much cash anyway?
- ct520 8y ago
  Lol I didn’t exactly have a legal reason. But definetly very legal in many states today. Just an entepneur a little ahead of his time I guess.

bunkydoo 8y ago

{Insert Worthless Opinion Here}

king_nothing 8y ago

Just FYI your freedom in the US can be revoked at anytime WITHOUT reasonable suspicion thanks to Reagan (5150; Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act 1972). This is the same actor whom closed California’s treatment facilities without having a replacement and later defunded all community mental health centers JFK promised, throwing millions of disabled people out into the cold and on the street, ostensibly being “kinder.”

s2g 8y ago

Can't wait for the 5-4 decision reaffirming civil forfeiture.

nicklaf 8y ago

I am appalled at the opinion of Judge Barnes: “I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have exercised in some of these cases,” Judge Barnes wrote. “Entire family farms are sometimes forfeited based on one family member’s conduct, or exorbitant amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself.” This sort of intersection between hard biological reality on the one hand (in this case, predictable consequence of highly addictive drugs), and the hard-nosed moralizing of a judge, reminds me of something Robert Sapolsky has been trying to impart about what we should give consideration to when looking for the ultimate sources of culpability when biological factors are involved, and whether or not we ought to see negative social behavior as a crime or a disease. Sapolsky has written a recent book about this topic, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.

scrollaway 8y ago
...but he's talking about a dealer, not a user?
- nicklaf 8y ago
  He was a user, though! And presumably became a dealer as a result (although this is not clear): Mr. Timbs’s habit started with an opioid addiction and progressed to heroin. He used his Land Rover to get drugs and, on at least two occasions, to sell them. The buyers were undercover police officers.

jimt1234 8y ago

Sorry for the long post, but I have to tell this story, as I saw 'civil forfeiture' up-front-and-center 25 years ago. My college girlfriend and her family migrated from Mexico in the early 70's, worked their asses off and all became pretty successful. They mostly owned restaurants (pizza, not tacos), but other businesses, too. One of her brothers owned a chain of used car lots in Northern California. He was a hard-working dude, with a wife and two sons. One of her brother's auto-detailers got busted for possession of a small amount of marijuana, which back in 1992 was actually a crime. The local cops claimed that the detailer was dealing for her brother, who was using his dealerships to distribute drugs and launder the profits. They seized his car lots, all the cars, his house, and froze his bank accounts. All total, the cops seized around half-a-million of cash and assets. The DA refused to bring a case, mainly because (1) the detailer didn't even know her brother; he only worked at the shop for less than a month, (2) the detailer was busted for possession in his own apartment, no where near work, (3) the detailer originally said he sold drugs at the shop, however, taped interviews clearly showed the cops pressuring the detailer to say that; it was like watching a POW read a pre-written statement, and (4) there was simply no other evidence, nothing. The cops found no drugs and any of his lots or his home. The DA even criticized the local cops' behavior in his statement, dropping the case. The DA dropped the case and said the local cops screwed up, so her brother should get all his assets returned, right? Wrong. His legal issues were just getting started. Looking back, it's clear the cops never had any intention of a criminal case. Her brother sued to get his assets returned, but the system is all-in for the cops, and they know it. And they know how to work it. The cops' attorney would file for delays, demand ridiculous documentation, and just not show up to court appointments, causing more delays. For example, the cops' attorney argued about the value of the seized vehicles, and demanded that her brother have them appraised, however, he couldn't have access to the vehicles to do the appraisals because, after months of back-and-forth, it turns out that the vehicles were already distributed (sold at auction), just days after the initial forfeiture. It was even rumored that one of the cops gave one of the seized vehicles (a Mustang) to his girlfriend, less than a week after the initial forfeiture. Her brother also was not allowed access to his home where all of his records were kept, however, police were seen coming and going for months. Oh yeah, remember how the DA never filed the case? That was another thing the cops' attorney argued - basically, since there was never a criminal trial, her brother was never found not guilty and thus the cops didn't know if he was a drug dealer or not. They claimed their policy allowed them to return assets to those proven not guilty in court. See how that works? This whole back-and-forth process went on for over two years. I'm skipping A LOT of details. Finally, the police department offered $50,000, take it or leave it. Her brother's attorney advised he take it, noting that the situation would only get worse, the city was prepared to drag out the case indefinitely. He didn't get his house back, any of the vehicles, or his business - nothing. He took his money and moved back to Mexico with his wife and kids. He now owns a chain of restaurants - that's right, pizza. None of them even liked pizza. I always found that strange. LOL Anyone who supports 'civil forfeiture' has simply never seen the effects on innocent lives. The defense I hear all the time is "Who cares? They're all drug dealers.", or "I don't believe it. Why would the cops seize assets from an innocent person?", and "What's so difficult about getting your stuff back, after it was seized?" But I saw a good man's life destroyed by this horrible policy. I buried my anger/frustration about this for years, thinking this bad policy couldn't possibly last, but unfortunately I was wrong. It's only gotten worse over the last 25 years. A lot worse.

thefounder 8y ago

>> I don’t feel like much of a man, because I don’t have a vehicle. A bit off topic but someone should tell this guy that a LR doesn't make you more of a man, especially if you buy it using the life insurance of your father. The best for him would be to actually sell the LR(if he ever gets it back), buy car that he can afford and use the rest of the money to put his life in order.