4 ms·

Hmm I wonder how this will affect the other civil forfeiture practice of charging the item itself with the crime (eg: "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currenc

by rtkwe 8y ago

Hmm I wonder how this will affect the other civil forfeiture practice of charging the item itself with the crime (eg: "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" [0]) where the owner of the property is never actually charged with a crime. Maybe this will stop that because without a conviction any fine could be considered excessive? The logic behind these cases has always baffled me. How do courts get around due process requirements of seizing claimed property like that? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...

nukemandan 8y ago
Thanks for this - no idea that this was even remotely a possibility in law...
phonon 8y ago
It means Austin (below) would now apply for state/local cases. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/509/602 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/509/602 1. Forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is a monetary punishment and, as such, is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. Pp. 2804-12. (a) The determinative question is not, as the Government would have it, whether forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal. The Eighth Amendment's text is not expressly limited to criminal cases, and its history does not require such a limitation. Rather, the crucial question is whether the forfeiture is monetary punishment, with which the Excessive Fines Clause is particularly concerned. Because sanctions frequently serve more than one purpose, the fact that a forfeiture serves remedial goals will not exclude it from the Clause's purview, so long as it can only be explained as serving in part to punish. See United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1901, 104 L.Ed.2d 487. Thus, consideration must be given to whether, at the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified, forfeiture was understood at least in part as punishment and whether forfeiture under § 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) should be so understood today. Pp. 2804-06. (b) A review of English and American law before, at the time of, and following the ratification of the Eighth Amendment demonstrates that forfeiture generally and statutory in rem forfeiture in particular historically have been understood, at least in part, as punishment. See, e.g., Peisch v. Ware, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 347, 364, 2 L.Ed. 643. The same understanding runs through this Court's cases rejecting the "innocence" of the owner as a common-law defense to forfeiture. See, e.g., Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 683, 686, 687, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2091, 2093, 2094, 40 L.Ed.2d 452. Pp. 2806-10. (c) Forfeitures under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) are properly consideed punishment today, since nothing in these provisions contradicts the historical understanding, since both sections clearly focus on the owner's culpability by expressly providing "innocent owner" defenses and by tying forfeiture directly to the commission of drug offenses, and since the legislative history confirms that Congress understood the provisions as serving to deter and to punish. Thus, even assuming that the sections serve some remedial purpose, it cannot be concluded that forfeiture under the sections serves only that purpose. Pp. 2810-12. 2. The Court declines to establish a test for determining whether a forfeiture is constitutionally "excessive," since prudence dictates that the lower courts be allowed to consider that question in the first instance. P. 2812.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  So from the sound of that it seems like civil asset forfeiture without charges filed or judgments rendered against a person should be dead in the water legally right? Because under this ruling any forfeiture under §§ 881(a) would be considered a punishment and there's a right to due process before punishment correct?
  - phonon 8y ago
    https://casetext.com/case/von-hofe-v-us https://casetext.com/case/von-hofe-v-us :-) Claimants Harold and Kathleen von Hofe appeal from a civil judgment ordering the forfeiture of their home, 32 Medley Lane. They contend the forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, which "limits the government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense." Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 609-10, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We affirm the forfeiture of Mr. von Hofe's interest in 32 Medley Lane, but not the forfeiture of Mrs. von Hofe's interest. Because the extent of the forfeiture bears no correlation either with Mrs. von Hofe's minimal culpability or any harm she purportedly caused, the Excessive Fines Clause precludes forfeiture of her entire one-half interest in 32 Medley Lane.
    - rtkwe 8y ago
      This case seems to still have charges filed against the people having their assets seized and if I understand Alford plea kind of plead guilty but not really (Alford plea seems to be 'fine I'll go to jail but I'm innocent). On a related note this is one of the things that annoys me about trying to talk about legal things on the internet, often people just quote cases directly without saying anything about what it actually means! Then to try to understand what is trying to be said I have to spend 20 minutes looking up various legal jargon to try to piece together what's being said in the case. I understand that pretty much everything is built on case history in the legal world but just quoting cases is tough to parse.
sbuttgereit 8y ago
This specific case was taken and argued by the Institute for Justice (https://ij.org https://ij.org), a civil liberties legal charity, that has a goal of addressing exactly this problem. The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of "the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall. The rationale was you had drug dealer types that were successfully evading prosecution on the tougher criminal standards of proof while also flaunting the wealth they obtained from their drug related businesses. So the idea was you could have a civil process with a lower standard of proof than the criminal ones with which could punish them. Of course, as the old saying goes, "the path to hell is paved with good intentions." and you get cases like this or worse even. I contribute to the Institute for Justice for just this reason.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of "the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall. No, they were in admiralty/customs law and predate the US, but came along with the body of law the US kept at it's founding. There was some new activity around Prohibition. Then big activity starting in 1970 around the drug war. (That's for federal civil forfeiture, while state level civil forfeiture has the same pre-US history, the later evolution varies by state.)
  - sbuttgereit 8y ago
    Fair enough. The big push in my lifetime was the big push around drugs. My family was involved in politics in the early 80's (I was fairly young at the time). I recall a lot of "get tough" political talk around that time and some touting establishment/expansion of civil forfeiture for these purposes. In truth, while understanding the history is important, I think that is ultimately secondary to what needs to be done with it now. It's a backdoor to punitive recourse that bypasses legitimate interests of criminality and due process. It's an abomination.

by rtkwe 8y ago

nukemandan 8y ago

Thanks for this - no idea that this was even remotely a possibility in law...

phonon 8y ago

It means Austin (below) would now apply for state/local cases. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/509/602 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/509/602 1. Forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is a monetary punishment and, as such, is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. Pp. 2804-12. (a) The determinative question is not, as the Government would have it, whether forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal. The Eighth Amendment's text is not expressly limited to criminal cases, and its history does not require such a limitation. Rather, the crucial question is whether the forfeiture is monetary punishment, with which the Excessive Fines Clause is particularly concerned. Because sanctions frequently serve more than one purpose, the fact that a forfeiture serves remedial goals will not exclude it from the Clause's purview, so long as it can only be explained as serving in part to punish. See United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1901, 104 L.Ed.2d 487. Thus, consideration must be given to whether, at the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified, forfeiture was understood at least in part as punishment and whether forfeiture under § 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) should be so understood today. Pp. 2804-06. (b) A review of English and American law before, at the time of, and following the ratification of the Eighth Amendment demonstrates that forfeiture generally and statutory in rem forfeiture in particular historically have been understood, at least in part, as punishment. See, e.g., Peisch v. Ware, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 347, 364, 2 L.Ed. 643. The same understanding runs through this Court's cases rejecting the "innocence" of the owner as a common-law defense to forfeiture. See, e.g., Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 683, 686, 687, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2091, 2093, 2094, 40 L.Ed.2d 452. Pp. 2806-10. (c) Forfeitures under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) are properly consideed punishment today, since nothing in these provisions contradicts the historical understanding, since both sections clearly focus on the owner's culpability by expressly providing "innocent owner" defenses and by tying forfeiture directly to the commission of drug offenses, and since the legislative history confirms that Congress understood the provisions as serving to deter and to punish. Thus, even assuming that the sections serve some remedial purpose, it cannot be concluded that forfeiture under the sections serves only that purpose. Pp. 2810-12. 2. The Court declines to establish a test for determining whether a forfeiture is constitutionally "excessive," since prudence dictates that the lower courts be allowed to consider that question in the first instance. P. 2812.

rtkwe 8y ago
So from the sound of that it seems like civil asset forfeiture without charges filed or judgments rendered against a person should be dead in the water legally right? Because under this ruling any forfeiture under §§ 881(a) would be considered a punishment and there's a right to due process before punishment correct?
- phonon 8y ago
  https://casetext.com/case/von-hofe-v-us https://casetext.com/case/von-hofe-v-us :-) Claimants Harold and Kathleen von Hofe appeal from a civil judgment ordering the forfeiture of their home, 32 Medley Lane. They contend the forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, which "limits the government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense." Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 609-10, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We affirm the forfeiture of Mr. von Hofe's interest in 32 Medley Lane, but not the forfeiture of Mrs. von Hofe's interest. Because the extent of the forfeiture bears no correlation either with Mrs. von Hofe's minimal culpability or any harm she purportedly caused, the Excessive Fines Clause precludes forfeiture of her entire one-half interest in 32 Medley Lane.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    This case seems to still have charges filed against the people having their assets seized and if I understand Alford plea kind of plead guilty but not really (Alford plea seems to be 'fine I'll go to jail but I'm innocent). On a related note this is one of the things that annoys me about trying to talk about legal things on the internet, often people just quote cases directly without saying anything about what it actually means! Then to try to understand what is trying to be said I have to spend 20 minutes looking up various legal jargon to try to piece together what's being said in the case. I understand that pretty much everything is built on case history in the legal world but just quoting cases is tough to parse.

sbuttgereit 8y ago

This specific case was taken and argued by the Institute for Justice (https://ij.org https://ij.org), a civil liberties legal charity, that has a goal of addressing exactly this problem. The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of "the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall. The rationale was you had drug dealer types that were successfully evading prosecution on the tougher criminal standards of proof while also flaunting the wealth they obtained from their drug related businesses. So the idea was you could have a civil process with a lower standard of proof than the criminal ones with which could punish them. Of course, as the old saying goes, "the path to hell is paved with good intentions." and you get cases like this or worse even. I contribute to the Institute for Justice for just this reason.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of "the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall. No, they were in admiralty/customs law and predate the US, but came along with the body of law the US kept at it's founding. There was some new activity around Prohibition. Then big activity starting in 1970 around the drug war. (That's for federal civil forfeiture, while state level civil forfeiture has the same pre-US history, the later evolution varies by state.)
- sbuttgereit 8y ago
  Fair enough. The big push in my lifetime was the big push around drugs. My family was involved in politics in the early 80's (I was fairly young at the time). I recall a lot of "get tough" political talk around that time and some touting establishment/expansion of civil forfeiture for these purposes. In truth, while understanding the history is important, I think that is ultimately secondary to what needs to be done with it now. It's a backdoor to punitive recourse that bypasses legitimate interests of criminality and due process. It's an abomination.