3 ms·

It will be interesting to see exactly how this ruling is applied in the field. My guess is that not much will change, as the most problematic and widespread ap

It will be interesting to see exactly how this ruling is applied in the field. My guess is that not much will change, as the most problematic and widespread applications of civil forfeiture don’t involve a crime where a monetary fine would be allowed as a penalty. Rather, the police simply steal (they prefer the term “seize,” but it’s just stealing) the money/assets claiming that they suspect it to be the fruit of a crime, then hope the person they stole it from does not have the resources necessary to hire an attorney to recover it. Charges are not filed, and in the majority of cases, the victims never get the money back. IANAL, but at first glance it seems that such cases would be unaffected by this ruling. No fine is being imposed that could be considered excessive under this ruling - the person is simply failing to claim their property.

rtkwe 8y ago
It seems like those cases should be because if there's no crime filed against a person related to the case there's no fine to assess in the first place so any 'fine' (read asset forfeiture) is excessive because it's >$0. Very much not a lawyer but the logic seems to hold. The whole asset forfeiture without any charges being filed always seemed really sketchy because in the end you're still taking assets from a person (so long as they're claimed, eg maybe if they find a pile of money in an abandoned drug lab a seizure would be valid if no one comes forward saying it's theirs at which point they should charge the person with crimes and seize the money after trial).
fhrow4484 8y ago
>My guess is that not much will change, as the most problematic and widespread applications of civil forfeiture don’t involve a crime where a monetary fine would be allowed as a penalty IANAL, but I see 2 reasonings: If seizing $40000 for <insert any crime/infraction, like going 5MPH over the speed limit, where max penalty is let's say $1000>, wouldn't it be excessive if it's seized for doing absolutely Nothing (suspicion of a crime: max penalty = 0 jail, $0 fine) ? And more specific to your point: if maximum penalty for a crime only involves jail time and $0 of maximum fine, wouldn't any seizure of cash/property be excessive since it's far larger than $0?

rtkwe 8y ago

It seems like those cases should be because if there's no crime filed against a person related to the case there's no fine to assess in the first place so any 'fine' (read asset forfeiture) is excessive because it's >$0. Very much not a lawyer but the logic seems to hold. The whole asset forfeiture without any charges being filed always seemed really sketchy because in the end you're still taking assets from a person (so long as they're claimed, eg maybe if they find a pile of money in an abandoned drug lab a seizure would be valid if no one comes forward saying it's theirs at which point they should charge the person with crimes and seize the money after trial).

fhrow4484 8y ago

>My guess is that not much will change, as the most problematic and widespread applications of civil forfeiture don’t involve a crime where a monetary fine would be allowed as a penalty IANAL, but I see 2 reasonings: If seizing $40000 for <insert any crime/infraction, like going 5MPH over the speed limit, where max penalty is let's say $1000>, wouldn't it be excessive if it's seized for doing absolutely Nothing (suspicion of a crime: max penalty = 0 jail, $0 fine) ? And more specific to your point: if maximum penalty for a crime only involves jail time and $0 of maximum fine, wouldn't any seizure of cash/property be excessive since it's far larger than $0?