13 ms·

Justin Amash Introduces Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeiture Nationwide

615 points by boogies 6y ago

baybal2 6y ago
So, not a specialist in US laws, and the last time I tried myself at it, it made me a laughing stock. But... If civil forfeiture is as such against the law already in current form, would that just mean that courts who kept okaying it will just keep ignoring the law?
- chomp 6y ago
  There's "Against The Law", and there's "against the law". the latter usually has to be proven in court using a pile of case history and existing laws, which is difficult when the assets seized are from the lower rungs of society, who have no means to retain an attorney, who definitely don't see the benefit of continuing the case once the state settles and they get their stuff back, and who have the cards stacked against them (not sure if it's the same now, but states used to charge you state legal fees if you lost your case.) Explicit is always better than implicit.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    US constitution is 100% explicit, it's forbidden 100% forbidden. Conformance to this is completely dependent on nothing more than judges' ability to read. If they read the US constitution, it says: > "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Cause not probable — Check Not supported by Oath — Check No specific description — Check
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Why don’t you think it has probable cause, oath, or description? This is a very low bar and has nothing to do with courts or judges.
      - baybal2 6y ago
        Because the cases people talk about are about the police confiscating the first thing they stumble upon, and deciding on the spot to confiscate it with no cause other than "they feel like doing it"
    - andrewjl 6y ago
      It'd be helpful to read up on constitutional law before drawing these conclusions because there is a long and complicated history around interpreting every phrase and most words in the part that you cite. Probable cause is a great place to start IMO.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  > If civil forfeiture is as such against the law already in current form, would that just mean that courts who kept okaying it will just keep ignoring the law? No. The courts interpret the law and civil forfeiture is currently in a grey area when it comes to the law. It can be argued to be unconstitutional, in that it appears to violate the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but there are a lot of laws on the books in the U.S. that on their face appear to be unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. But if the legislature creates a law to make civil forfeiture illegal then that gives the courts less wiggle room to interpret the law.
  - martincmartin 6y ago
    I thought the supreme court was given a chance to strike it down and didn't. So the supreme court has affirmed it is constitutional, IIRC.
    - vmception 6y ago
      That's correct, it is constitutional. Colloquially, people call things "unconstitutional" when it doesn't match the social contract they were told when younger. It's more of a meme than a reference to what matches the constitution. Children in the US are told lies to differentiate the US from other political systems worldwide. Those that can read are able to adopt a more effective set of rules in the US.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > there are a lot of laws on the books in the U.S. that on their face appear to be unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. But what if the law is clearly 1000% prima facie against the word of constitution, but judges still keep deciding to okay it fully knowing of its unconstitutionality?
    - nickff 6y ago
      Then the constitution is truly alive! Or perhaps undead... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
1cvmask 6y ago
This is real reform. But it will die probably because too many people benefit from the misery of others. Civil forfeiture is unconstitutional. Assets are seized based on “suspicion.” Individuals in many alleged “authoritarian” countries or dictatorships have more rights than the victims of civil asset forfeiture.
- vmception 6y ago
  It isn't unconstitutional as the courts have affirmed over and over again. Property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly. But just because something is constitutional doesn't mean we have to do it, which is why simply getting the legislature to say "hey don't do that" is the approach left right now.
  - mpweiher 6y ago
    > Property is not afforded the rights of humans Sure. > cases can be levied against property directly That part is absurd.
    - cestith 6y ago
      Absurd? Yes. True? Also yes. That's why Amash filed the bill.
  - pretty_bubbles 6y ago
    Hey, I just stole your car. Cars don't have rights. So I haven't committed any crime.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      If you live in the US, as long as you sue the car and win first, (which not everyone can do), that's a perfectly fine argument. If you don't like it, change it.
avalys 6y ago
Justin Amash is the only principled person in Congress. The only Republican in the House to vote for both articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. Of course - this is his last term, he did not run for reelection. I hope he does something meaningful next.
- kifhuwzrsa 6y ago
  Funny, because I would list that as one of the few unprincipled decisions he has made.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  He's not a Republican anymore since 2019 - he ran as Independent and then for the Libertarian party.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  What HN downvotes never ceases to amuse me.
  - xpe 6y ago
    Hello, we'd appreciate if you took a look at the HN Guidelines if you have not recently. There is a link in the footer to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
- mmcconnell1618 6y ago
  It's amazing how reasonable some of these politicians get as soon as they no longer need to run for another term in office. I've often believed it was because they needed to keep a part of their constituents happy to get votes for another terms but I actually think fundraising and the lobbyists that control money are the root cause. HBO has a fairly recent documentary that explores this: https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-swamp https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-swamp
  - 6y ago
ajbonkoski 6y ago
Yes to this a thousand times. I firmly believe the framers of the constitution would be horrified by this law. This should have been killed a long time ago.
standardUser 6y ago
While I'm glad to see growing support for rolling back some of the most obviously horrific excesses of the War on Drugs, we still have a generation or two of Americans who eagerly support simply destroying the lives of people involved with drugs they've been trained to be afraid of. I mean, it's great so many people are finally willing to stop obliterating the lives of strangers who like to smoke weed instead of get drunk, but why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends?
- option 6y ago
  because some of his friends will have their lives ruined with pretty high probability because of this.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    That is likely true although "Drugs will ruin your life, so here's a 40 year prison sentence" isn't great either. Viewing addicts as human beings is a step too far for many, unfortunately.
  - iaHN 6y ago
    Is the act of doing some drugs enough to ruin your life? The wealthy do drugs all the time. I'm willing to bet the majority of our politicians have done "illegal drugs" during their adult lives. Why the double standard?
- boogies 6y ago
  > why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends I think they think that he’s ruining their lives and hope to deter him. But I think the view that there’s no limit to how badly his life can justifiably be ruined (or ended) is receding, there was multi-partisan (& independent) support for the First Step Act. And I think many reasonable people across spectrums could agree on more steps like the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act, but some politicians love to laser focus on racial tensions and divide them. (Edit: expanded second sentence)
vmception 6y ago
> The libertarian congressman, who is retiring after this session, has long been a proponent of criminal justice reform. Okay so his bill will exist for basically 10 days before all bills in Congress get erased and he won't even be around to reintroduce it when the new Congress starts next month? Yeah ok. Dang, you know what to do, time to close this thread just like you did with the Stable Act. tl;dr in b4 lock.
snarfy 6y ago
I look forward to hearing the arguments from the opposition.
- golemotron 6y ago
  Yes. I'd like to read a balanced article that talks about the history of CAF and its rationale.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 93po 6y ago
  It's going to be arguments that CAF has curbed the drug cartels and is essential to stopping drugs and trafficking, including children. Guaranteed they mention child trafficking.
solotronics 6y ago
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
kochb 6y ago
It should be clear that this is a purely symbolic gesture. The bill will die in two weeks at the end of the 116th Congress. Amash is retiring at the end of his term; he would have had to run as a Libertarian against a Republican whose name is on half the grocery stores in the state (Meijer).
- eredengrin 6y ago
  If you're insinuating that he thinks he couldn't have won, I think you're very wrong (both that he couldn't win, and even moreso that he would think he couldn't win). His region has been highly supportive of him for a long time and he's been very up front about his ideologies. Also, the campaign finance numbers from the beginning of 2020 before he decided not to run again looked far better for him even as an independent than it did for any of his Republican or Democratic competitors (in particular, he raised over 2x as much as Meijer in 4th quarter 2019 and also more than all his opponents combined, again as an independent at the time) [1]. The real reason he isn't running is because he spent 10 years in congress trying to make change and has decided it isn't the most effective thing he can do anymore. Congress is too focused on partisan politics and isn't interested at all in fixing its broken system (most of them seem to prefer the broken system), which leaves little room for anyone of any party to make real change unless they're the party leader (or in cahoots with them). I suspect we'll see him running for other positions in the future and wouldn't be surprised at all if he wins whatever race he decides to join next. [1] https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2020/02/independent-congressman-amash-outraises-republican-democratic-competitors.html https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2020/02/independent-...
  - kochb 6y ago
    I agree with you, he mainly dropped from the race because it was no longer an effective avenue to advance his ideas. I do have to contest the first part of your statement - it's wishful thinking to see him having won this race. You're correct that he enjoys a broad base of bipartisan support, but the combination of turning on Trump, leaving the Republican party, and having a well-recognized opponent imperiled his chances in that district. He would have had to snag approximately 25% of the Democratic vote and 45% of the Republican vote to achieve that feat.
SubiculumCode 6y ago
Beset by the multitude of issues we face today, I have rarely given civil asset forfeiture the attention it deserved, despite my strong feeling on the matter. I also do think it is clearly unconstitutional, if not in literal, in the spirit of the Constitution. I support this bill 200%.
Simulacra 6y ago
This was a complete waste of time. He's out of Congress, and once the session ends here in a few weeks, the bill evaporates. Where was amash before? Why didn't he introduce this bill two years ago?
glennvtx 6y ago
Anyone who uses coercion to take property from someone where that person has not trespassed the person or property of another human being is a thief, it does not matter what uniform they wear, or how many people voted for them to be able to do it. If a thief attempts to take your property at gunpoint, You have every right to defend yourself from it.
FpUser 6y ago
In my book of government crimes civil asset forfeiture takes second place after death penalty. How can any government claiming to be "for the people, by the people" and holding high moral ground get so low as to fuck with and ruin people's lives with as little as a mere suspicion. It is totally disgusting.
rediguanayum 6y ago
Can the federal government actually end civil asset forfeiture "nationwide" due to the US Constitution's delegation of power to the states? In fact would this type of reform have to happen at the state level, and basically 50+ times? Unless explicitly stated in the constitution, there will be a cat fight of litigation over federal vs state rights, and the current federal court system is being more and more tilted towards states' rights. I'm wondering if this is some sort posturing by the author.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
This is what democracy is all about: elected representatives acting in the interests of the people and pushing back against the institutional interests in the state that benefit from growing state power.

615 points by boogies 6y ago

So, not a specialist in US laws, and the last time I tried myself at it, it made me a laughing stock. But... If civil forfeiture is as such against the law already in current form, would that just mean that courts who kept okaying it will just keep ignoring the law?

chomp 6y ago
There's "Against The Law", and there's "against the law". the latter usually has to be proven in court using a pile of case history and existing laws, which is difficult when the assets seized are from the lower rungs of society, who have no means to retain an attorney, who definitely don't see the benefit of continuing the case once the state settles and they get their stuff back, and who have the cards stacked against them (not sure if it's the same now, but states used to charge you state legal fees if you lost your case.) Explicit is always better than implicit.
- baybal2 6y ago
  US constitution is 100% explicit, it's forbidden 100% forbidden. Conformance to this is completely dependent on nothing more than judges' ability to read. If they read the US constitution, it says: > "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Cause not probable — Check Not supported by Oath — Check No specific description — Check
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Why don’t you think it has probable cause, oath, or description? This is a very low bar and has nothing to do with courts or judges.
    - baybal2 6y ago
      Because the cases people talk about are about the police confiscating the first thing they stumble upon, and deciding on the spot to confiscate it with no cause other than "they feel like doing it"
  - andrewjl 6y ago
    It'd be helpful to read up on constitutional law before drawing these conclusions because there is a long and complicated history around interpreting every phrase and most words in the part that you cite. Probable cause is a great place to start IMO.
disgrunt 6y ago
> If civil forfeiture is as such against the law already in current form, would that just mean that courts who kept okaying it will just keep ignoring the law? No. The courts interpret the law and civil forfeiture is currently in a grey area when it comes to the law. It can be argued to be unconstitutional, in that it appears to violate the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but there are a lot of laws on the books in the U.S. that on their face appear to be unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. But if the legislature creates a law to make civil forfeiture illegal then that gives the courts less wiggle room to interpret the law.
- martincmartin 6y ago
  I thought the supreme court was given a chance to strike it down and didn't. So the supreme court has affirmed it is constitutional, IIRC.
  - vmception 6y ago
    That's correct, it is constitutional. Colloquially, people call things "unconstitutional" when it doesn't match the social contract they were told when younger. It's more of a meme than a reference to what matches the constitution. Children in the US are told lies to differentiate the US from other political systems worldwide. Those that can read are able to adopt a more effective set of rules in the US.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > there are a lot of laws on the books in the U.S. that on their face appear to be unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. But what if the law is clearly 1000% prima facie against the word of constitution, but judges still keep deciding to okay it fully knowing of its unconstitutionality?
  - nickff 6y ago
    Then the constitution is truly alive! Or perhaps undead... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

1cvmask 6y ago

This is real reform. But it will die probably because too many people benefit from the misery of others. Civil forfeiture is unconstitutional. Assets are seized based on “suspicion.” Individuals in many alleged “authoritarian” countries or dictatorships have more rights than the victims of civil asset forfeiture.

vmception 6y ago
It isn't unconstitutional as the courts have affirmed over and over again. Property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly. But just because something is constitutional doesn't mean we have to do it, which is why simply getting the legislature to say "hey don't do that" is the approach left right now.
- mpweiher 6y ago
  > Property is not afforded the rights of humans Sure. > cases can be levied against property directly That part is absurd.
  - cestith 6y ago
    Absurd? Yes. True? Also yes. That's why Amash filed the bill.
- pretty_bubbles 6y ago
  Hey, I just stole your car. Cars don't have rights. So I haven't committed any crime.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    If you live in the US, as long as you sue the car and win first, (which not everyone can do), that's a perfectly fine argument. If you don't like it, change it.

avalys 6y ago

Justin Amash is the only principled person in Congress. The only Republican in the House to vote for both articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. Of course - this is his last term, he did not run for reelection. I hope he does something meaningful next.

kifhuwzrsa 6y ago
Funny, because I would list that as one of the few unprincipled decisions he has made.
ekianjo 6y ago
He's not a Republican anymore since 2019 - he ran as Independent and then for the Libertarian party.
mhh__ 6y ago
What HN downvotes never ceases to amuse me.
- xpe 6y ago
  Hello, we'd appreciate if you took a look at the HN Guidelines if you have not recently. There is a link in the footer to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
mmcconnell1618 6y ago
It's amazing how reasonable some of these politicians get as soon as they no longer need to run for another term in office. I've often believed it was because they needed to keep a part of their constituents happy to get votes for another terms but I actually think fundraising and the lobbyists that control money are the root cause. HBO has a fairly recent documentary that explores this: https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-swamp https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-swamp
- 6y ago

ajbonkoski 6y ago

Yes to this a thousand times. I firmly believe the framers of the constitution would be horrified by this law. This should have been killed a long time ago.

standardUser 6y ago

While I'm glad to see growing support for rolling back some of the most obviously horrific excesses of the War on Drugs, we still have a generation or two of Americans who eagerly support simply destroying the lives of people involved with drugs they've been trained to be afraid of. I mean, it's great so many people are finally willing to stop obliterating the lives of strangers who like to smoke weed instead of get drunk, but why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends?

option 6y ago
because some of his friends will have their lives ruined with pretty high probability because of this.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  That is likely true although "Drugs will ruin your life, so here's a 40 year prison sentence" isn't great either. Viewing addicts as human beings is a step too far for many, unfortunately.
- iaHN 6y ago
  Is the act of doing some drugs enough to ruin your life? The wealthy do drugs all the time. I'm willing to bet the majority of our politicians have done "illegal drugs" during their adult lives. Why the double standard?
boogies 6y ago
> why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends I think they think that he’s ruining their lives and hope to deter him. But I think the view that there’s no limit to how badly his life can justifiably be ruined (or ended) is receding, there was multi-partisan (& independent) support for the First Step Act. And I think many reasonable people across spectrums could agree on more steps like the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act, but some politicians love to laser focus on racial tensions and divide them. (Edit: expanded second sentence)

vmception 6y ago

> The libertarian congressman, who is retiring after this session, has long been a proponent of criminal justice reform. Okay so his bill will exist for basically 10 days before all bills in Congress get erased and he won't even be around to reintroduce it when the new Congress starts next month? Yeah ok. Dang, you know what to do, time to close this thread just like you did with the Stable Act. tl;dr in b4 lock.

snarfy 6y ago

I look forward to hearing the arguments from the opposition.

golemotron 6y ago
Yes. I'd like to read a balanced article that talks about the history of CAF and its rationale.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
93po 6y ago
It's going to be arguments that CAF has curbed the drug cartels and is essential to stopping drugs and trafficking, including children. Guaranteed they mention child trafficking.

solotronics 6y ago

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

kochb 6y ago

It should be clear that this is a purely symbolic gesture. The bill will die in two weeks at the end of the 116th Congress. Amash is retiring at the end of his term; he would have had to run as a Libertarian against a Republican whose name is on half the grocery stores in the state (Meijer).

eredengrin 6y ago
If you're insinuating that he thinks he couldn't have won, I think you're very wrong (both that he couldn't win, and even moreso that he would think he couldn't win). His region has been highly supportive of him for a long time and he's been very up front about his ideologies. Also, the campaign finance numbers from the beginning of 2020 before he decided not to run again looked far better for him even as an independent than it did for any of his Republican or Democratic competitors (in particular, he raised over 2x as much as Meijer in 4th quarter 2019 and also more than all his opponents combined, again as an independent at the time) [1]. The real reason he isn't running is because he spent 10 years in congress trying to make change and has decided it isn't the most effective thing he can do anymore. Congress is too focused on partisan politics and isn't interested at all in fixing its broken system (most of them seem to prefer the broken system), which leaves little room for anyone of any party to make real change unless they're the party leader (or in cahoots with them). I suspect we'll see him running for other positions in the future and wouldn't be surprised at all if he wins whatever race he decides to join next. [1] https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2020/02/independent-congressman-amash-outraises-republican-democratic-competitors.html https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2020/02/independent-...
- kochb 6y ago
  I agree with you, he mainly dropped from the race because it was no longer an effective avenue to advance his ideas. I do have to contest the first part of your statement - it's wishful thinking to see him having won this race. You're correct that he enjoys a broad base of bipartisan support, but the combination of turning on Trump, leaving the Republican party, and having a well-recognized opponent imperiled his chances in that district. He would have had to snag approximately 25% of the Democratic vote and 45% of the Republican vote to achieve that feat.

SubiculumCode 6y ago

Beset by the multitude of issues we face today, I have rarely given civil asset forfeiture the attention it deserved, despite my strong feeling on the matter. I also do think it is clearly unconstitutional, if not in literal, in the spirit of the Constitution. I support this bill 200%.

Simulacra 6y ago

This was a complete waste of time. He's out of Congress, and once the session ends here in a few weeks, the bill evaporates. Where was amash before? Why didn't he introduce this bill two years ago?

glennvtx 6y ago

Anyone who uses coercion to take property from someone where that person has not trespassed the person or property of another human being is a thief, it does not matter what uniform they wear, or how many people voted for them to be able to do it. If a thief attempts to take your property at gunpoint, You have every right to defend yourself from it.

FpUser 6y ago

In my book of government crimes civil asset forfeiture takes second place after death penalty. How can any government claiming to be "for the people, by the people" and holding high moral ground get so low as to fuck with and ruin people's lives with as little as a mere suspicion. It is totally disgusting.

rediguanayum 6y ago

Can the federal government actually end civil asset forfeiture "nationwide" due to the US Constitution's delegation of power to the states? In fact would this type of reform have to happen at the state level, and basically 50+ times? Unless explicitly stated in the constitution, there will be a cat fight of litigation over federal vs state rights, and the current federal court system is being more and more tilted towards states' rights. I'm wondering if this is some sort posturing by the author.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

This is what democracy is all about: elected representatives acting in the interests of the people and pushing back against the institutional interests in the state that benefit from growing state power.