9 ms·

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 cas

by 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/...
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Political will is getting there. A couple of states have banned the practice, and more are removing the incentive that police departments have to do it(that the funds go to the police).
- mmt 8y ago
  > A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture. I posit it's a better way (assuming SCOTUS makes decides an actual Constitutional question) than legislation, since it precludes legislators merely reinstating the practice later.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  If they just drop the case or the person wins in the lower courts and gets their money back then it will never get to the Supreme Court, they have to fight to keep the money (which they don't if it's obvious they'll lose) in order for it to reach the higher levels. I've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the property itself so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture.
  - downandout 8y ago
    I've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the property itself so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture. This is generally how the cases are titled - U.S.A vs $200,000 US currency, for example. Here's a list of recent federal court cases where the defendant is "currency" [1]. You can also view publicly posted forfeiture notices, which give an indication of the magnitude of this problem, here [2]. But the owner can still attempt to get it back, it's just usually at a very high legal cost. [1] https://prnt.sc/jzcl8c https://prnt.sc/jzcl8c [2] https://www.forfeiture.gov https://www.forfeiture.gov
Analemma_ 8y ago
Whatever its other faults, SCOTUS is usually pretty good about not letting crummy defendants blind them to setting good precedent. For example, Miranda warnings came about when they threw out the conviction of a man who had almost certainly kidnapped and raped a teenager.
- shawn 8y ago
  This has always fascinated me. It's very strange to think about the fact that society works this way, and that it has to.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    It's the same thing that puzzles some people about the ACLU.
  - mlindner 8y ago
    It's called rule of law, not rule of monarch (monarchy) or rule of mob (pure democracy).
  - sjwright 8y ago
    It doesn't seem strange at all. It's not the Supreme Court's fault that the defendant or plaintiff in any particular case are scummy or sympathetic, nobodies or famous, weak or powerful. They are aware that their decisions will affect many more people. They need to create law which caters for the for the wrongly accused as much as it does the rightly accused.
    - another-one-off 8y ago
      Everything you said is actually pretty strange. I'm on board with it, but the default what-humans-try-on-the-first-pass approach is to consider each case on its own merits including the people involved (and runs smack-bang into the various -isms, eg, racism). The idea that a scummy and a sympathetic defendant will get the same treatment is genuinely weird and not at all an instinctive approach to justice. This system is under constant pressure to revert back to more primitive approaches, where 'good people' get good outcomes and 'bad people' get bad outcomes. It just happens that, in practice, what we have now is better than that.
Navarr 8y ago
Considering the lower courts all agreed that the forfeiture was excessive, I'm not inclined to worry too much about that. It appears to be going to the supreme court b/c the Indiana Supreme Court said that the amendment regarding excessive fines doesn't apply to the states. So the real question being asked to the SC in this case is "Must states abide by the 8th amendment?" Since they must 1st, 2nd, and others - I don't see why they would not be required to do so.
- dhd415 8y ago
  It's because of selective incorporation. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine). For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
  - cabaalis 8y ago
    I can't for the life of me understand why the 10th amendment does not have a more prominent place in the American political system than it does. It is because government would be hamstrung if they respected it? It would seem to the layman that is the entire reason it exists!
    - mijoharas 8y ago
      Sorry, could you explain what the 10th amendment is? (The Wikipedia page has some assumed knowledge that I do not have as I'm not American.)
      - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
        It means that anything not expressly prohibited in the constitution is up to the states to decide. What most people don't get (even in the USA) is that the constitution doesn't grant powers to people. It only restricts the government from acting on the people. People were born with the right to speak freely and defend themselves as they see fit - the government can't change that for example. So the 10th says if it isn't mentioned it is a power that belongs to the people or the states. For example, weed isn't mentioned in the constitution so technically it's a 10th issue for states to decide - HOWEVER - this is thing called the commerce clause... Commerce clause means that if something moves from state to state, that sure does seem like a Federal matter. So it gets complicated. But... In the end, some states have legalized in the state in part referring to 10A, it's their right to do - but if you are in a "weed state" and light up at a DEA office - expect to be arrested and charged with a federal crime. * The thing about commerce clause is that almost everything can move from state to state. So that's a little bit of an annoying topic depending on the issue and which side you're on. For example, I can manufacture a gun in my state that isn't legal in another state, commerce clause has been tried to limit 2A.
amyjess 8y ago
IANAL either, but the Supreme Court generally prefers to set very narrow precedents. It's possible they'll rule that civil forfeiture was acceptable in this one specific case, and they'll go out of their way to make it clear that their ruling only applies to this specific case.
koboll 8y ago
It would be a wild dereliction of the duty of SCOTUS to let the facts of a particular case influence their judgement on a broader legal question. Many cases get sent back to lower courts without resolving a broader legal question because the facts of a particular case weren't quite perfectly aligned to make it an appropriate vehicle to resolve a broad question. The political gerrymandering cases decided thus far this term are a good example.
- jdpedrie 8y ago
  > The political gerrymandering cases decided thus far this term are a good example. Masterpiece Cake Shop was as well. The court ruled in his favor, but was able to wiggle out of resolving the constitutional questions because of explicit bias on the part of the CO Civil Rights Commission.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    This is getting off topic, but: I read Masterpiece as saying that, if you're going to apply the rules against a Christian baker, you have to apply the same rules against a gay baker (CO Civil Rights ignored complaints from Christians against gay bakers who wouldn't put some Christian message on their cake). I think this is the right approach. A Christian could go to a gay baker, asking for a cake that quoted a Bible verse that said that homosexuality is a sin. A gay rights convention could ask a Christian baker for a cake that said "Christianity is bigotry". The rules for one have to be the rules for the other. My preferred answer: Put a gay baker and a Christian baker in a room. Tell them to come up with the rules. The rules will apply to both of them. Give them two hours. You'll get a reasonable proposal. Make that the rules.
    - koboll 8y ago
      >My preferred answer: Put a gay baker and a Christian baker in a room. Tell them to come up with the rules. The rules will apply to both of them. Give them two hours. You'll get a reasonable proposal. I disagree. A racist white shopkeeper and a black shopkeeper set to the same task in the 1960s would not come up with the Civil Rights Act; they would come up with something that segregated people further. I think the same would occur here.

by archon 8y ago

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/...

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Political will is getting there. A couple of states have banned the practice, and more are removing the incentive that police departments have to do it(that the funds go to the police).
mmt 8y ago
> A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture. I posit it's a better way (assuming SCOTUS makes decides an actual Constitutional question) than legislation, since it precludes legislators merely reinstating the practice later.
UncleEntity 8y ago
If they just drop the case or the person wins in the lower courts and gets their money back then it will never get to the Supreme Court, they have to fight to keep the money (which they don't if it's obvious they'll lose) in order for it to reach the higher levels. I've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the property itself so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture.
- downandout 8y ago
  I've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the property itself so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture. This is generally how the cases are titled - U.S.A vs $200,000 US currency, for example. Here's a list of recent federal court cases where the defendant is "currency" [1]. You can also view publicly posted forfeiture notices, which give an indication of the magnitude of this problem, here [2]. But the owner can still attempt to get it back, it's just usually at a very high legal cost. [1] https://prnt.sc/jzcl8c https://prnt.sc/jzcl8c [2] https://www.forfeiture.gov https://www.forfeiture.gov

Analemma_ 8y ago

Whatever its other faults, SCOTUS is usually pretty good about not letting crummy defendants blind them to setting good precedent. For example, Miranda warnings came about when they threw out the conviction of a man who had almost certainly kidnapped and raped a teenager.

shawn 8y ago
This has always fascinated me. It's very strange to think about the fact that society works this way, and that it has to.
- code_duck 8y ago
  It's the same thing that puzzles some people about the ACLU.
- mlindner 8y ago
  It's called rule of law, not rule of monarch (monarchy) or rule of mob (pure democracy).
- sjwright 8y ago
  It doesn't seem strange at all. It's not the Supreme Court's fault that the defendant or plaintiff in any particular case are scummy or sympathetic, nobodies or famous, weak or powerful. They are aware that their decisions will affect many more people. They need to create law which caters for the for the wrongly accused as much as it does the rightly accused.
  - another-one-off 8y ago
    Everything you said is actually pretty strange. I'm on board with it, but the default what-humans-try-on-the-first-pass approach is to consider each case on its own merits including the people involved (and runs smack-bang into the various -isms, eg, racism). The idea that a scummy and a sympathetic defendant will get the same treatment is genuinely weird and not at all an instinctive approach to justice. This system is under constant pressure to revert back to more primitive approaches, where 'good people' get good outcomes and 'bad people' get bad outcomes. It just happens that, in practice, what we have now is better than that.

Navarr 8y ago

Considering the lower courts all agreed that the forfeiture was excessive, I'm not inclined to worry too much about that. It appears to be going to the supreme court b/c the Indiana Supreme Court said that the amendment regarding excessive fines doesn't apply to the states. So the real question being asked to the SC in this case is "Must states abide by the 8th amendment?" Since they must 1st, 2nd, and others - I don't see why they would not be required to do so.

dhd415 8y ago
It's because of selective incorporation. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine). For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
- cabaalis 8y ago
  I can't for the life of me understand why the 10th amendment does not have a more prominent place in the American political system than it does. It is because government would be hamstrung if they respected it? It would seem to the layman that is the entire reason it exists!
  - mijoharas 8y ago
    Sorry, could you explain what the 10th amendment is? (The Wikipedia page has some assumed knowledge that I do not have as I'm not American.)
    - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
      It means that anything not expressly prohibited in the constitution is up to the states to decide. What most people don't get (even in the USA) is that the constitution doesn't grant powers to people. It only restricts the government from acting on the people. People were born with the right to speak freely and defend themselves as they see fit - the government can't change that for example. So the 10th says if it isn't mentioned it is a power that belongs to the people or the states. For example, weed isn't mentioned in the constitution so technically it's a 10th issue for states to decide - HOWEVER - this is thing called the commerce clause... Commerce clause means that if something moves from state to state, that sure does seem like a Federal matter. So it gets complicated. But... In the end, some states have legalized in the state in part referring to 10A, it's their right to do - but if you are in a "weed state" and light up at a DEA office - expect to be arrested and charged with a federal crime. * The thing about commerce clause is that almost everything can move from state to state. So that's a little bit of an annoying topic depending on the issue and which side you're on. For example, I can manufacture a gun in my state that isn't legal in another state, commerce clause has been tried to limit 2A.

amyjess 8y ago

IANAL either, but the Supreme Court generally prefers to set very narrow precedents. It's possible they'll rule that civil forfeiture was acceptable in this one specific case, and they'll go out of their way to make it clear that their ruling only applies to this specific case.

koboll 8y ago

It would be a wild dereliction of the duty of SCOTUS to let the facts of a particular case influence their judgement on a broader legal question. Many cases get sent back to lower courts without resolving a broader legal question because the facts of a particular case weren't quite perfectly aligned to make it an appropriate vehicle to resolve a broad question. The political gerrymandering cases decided thus far this term are a good example.

jdpedrie 8y ago
> The political gerrymandering cases decided thus far this term are a good example. Masterpiece Cake Shop was as well. The court ruled in his favor, but was able to wiggle out of resolving the constitutional questions because of explicit bias on the part of the CO Civil Rights Commission.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  This is getting off topic, but: I read Masterpiece as saying that, if you're going to apply the rules against a Christian baker, you have to apply the same rules against a gay baker (CO Civil Rights ignored complaints from Christians against gay bakers who wouldn't put some Christian message on their cake). I think this is the right approach. A Christian could go to a gay baker, asking for a cake that quoted a Bible verse that said that homosexuality is a sin. A gay rights convention could ask a Christian baker for a cake that said "Christianity is bigotry". The rules for one have to be the rules for the other. My preferred answer: Put a gay baker and a Christian baker in a room. Tell them to come up with the rules. The rules will apply to both of them. Give them two hours. You'll get a reasonable proposal. Make that the rules.
  - koboll 8y ago
    >My preferred answer: Put a gay baker and a Christian baker in a room. Tell them to come up with the rules. The rules will apply to both of them. Give them two hours. You'll get a reasonable proposal. I disagree. A racist white shopkeeper and a black shopkeeper set to the same task in the 1960s would not come up with the Civil Rights Act; they would come up with something that segregated people further. I think the same would occur here.