9 ms·

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 seiz

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.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > If you don't like it, change it. That's what this bill is about.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Sure. I never said it shouldn't pass.
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      But the government takes the property without first winning any sort of lawsuit.
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  > Property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly. That is a ridiculous argument. Taking someone’s car or money isn’t “punishing the property” or “hurting the car’s feelings,” it’s depriving a citizen or resident of what is (until proven otherwise in a court of law) rightfully theirs and transgressing on their individual liberties. It is theft.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    I agree with you but the parent’s point still stands. This is how the courts have allowed suits to go through in more than just civil forfeiture cases. If the property isn’t legally yours then you can’t possibly claim property ownership rights to it. So you “sue” the property and have all parties who believe they have a claim to it be parties in the lawsuit. It’s a quirk of the legal system. In practice it’s still the gov’t vs. the original “owner” fighting over who owns it. It can’t be theft until after the courts decide who owns it. Then it can be theft.
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      Wrong. It's theft at the very moment that an unjustified seizure occurs. The recourse you have is to convince a court to declare it theft and force the taker to give it back. But the court's declaration is only a legal thing, not able to define reality.
      - ouid 6y ago
        Well, since property is an abstraction that is dependent on your relationship with the government, what you are calling reality is also a legal thing.
        jtbayly 6y ago
        I’m not saying that it’s not also legal in nature. What I’m objecting to is philosophizing that ends up saying “It’s not wrong unless you get caught.”
  - 6y ago
- Retric 6y ago
  Hogwash, property belongs to someone and it’s that person who has constitutional protections. The difference is people must actively defend the constitution, on it’s own it’s just a document without lawyers or legal standing to defend itself.
  - vmception 6y ago
    > courts have affirmed over and over again I don't have emotions on this matter and I don't care what you think and I haven't stated my actual opinion. The authority on this matter are the courts. The courts have evaluated civil forfeiture under 4th amendment arguments 5th amendment arguments 6th amendment arguments 8th amendment arguments 14th amendment arguments and only found the 8th amendment argument against excessive fines to hold some weight, but not to undo civil asset forfeiture but only clarifying that the 8th amendment actually applies to the states. if you want the executive branches to act differently and the courts to rule differently then you have to change what the legislature allows them to do. like I wrote, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean we have to do it.
    - kbelder 6y ago
      I think the people arguing with you are simply stating that the judges who ruled that it is constitutional are _wrong_. It's a stance I agree with.
      - vmception 6y ago
        if only there was a completely different branch of government we could get to limit how the courts could rule, if someone figures it out they should do it and make an article about it i might even write a comment about how thats the most effective way to change the reality, I wonder if people will read that part though, what do you think?
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        The Supreme Court occasionally overturns precedent.
- epage 6y ago
  Have example cases re-affirming the constitutionality of civil forfeiture? It seems to run counter the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments, at minimum. This layman's reading and understanding is generally what people mean when they speak of "unconstitutional". Nuances found through the courts are then not "obvious" and more detail is helpful to have a helpful conversation on all sides.
  - eganist 6y ago
    Upheld but with limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._United_States This was the push that got the snowball rolling, so to speak.
  - vmception 6y ago
    The courts have evaluated civil forfeiture under 4th amendment arguments 5th amendment arguments 6th amendment arguments 8th amendment arguments 14th amendment arguments and only found the 8th amendment argument against excessive fines to hold some weight, but not to undo civil asset forfeiture but only clarifying that the 8th amendment actually applies to the states They file the case against the property, not the human. If we want a constitutional guarantee on the property then we need a new constitution with its own property based bill of rights the cases aren't on my clipboard but anyone passing by feel free to fill them in. The 8th amendment case was before the US Supreme Court this year or last, despite the positive ruling it did not get the man's property back until the state he was in re-ruled.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      If property doesn't have rights, how can the 8th ammendment protect it, yet it doesn't have protections under the others? The 4th explicitly requires the seizure of property to be based on at least probable cause. Just seems like a massive contradiction. I guess someone needs to file a civil rights suit because they were deprived of that property under the color of law. The 4th ammendment is quite clear that one is to be secure in their affects. Doesn't matter if the case was filed against the property, the effect was felt by the person.
    - 6y ago
- donatj 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" Seems right there, in plain english, in the 4th Amendment. I don't know what you're on about.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    I suspect the gray area and disagreement comes out of the word "unreasonable", which looks much different to the suspect, the police, and the judicial system.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    The problem is in the word "their". If they stole it, it's not theirs. If they bought it with stolen money, again, it's not theirs. Or at least, so goes the legal theory. It seems straightforward enough, until you realize that it basically shifts the burden of proof for any ownership to you. And that includes the recursive problem of the money you used to buy it, so merely having a receipt doesn't suffice. In a straightforward sense, it really does turn out to be that the word "their" is more complicated than it seems at first blush. But it's also clear that this complication is easily abused, and has been -- to a degree that courts should have stomped on long ago.
    - MrStonedOne 6y ago
      CAF is often used for properties that is theirs, and was bought with valid money, under the ""suspicion"" that the property was used for illegal things. One case that is an example is a waitress who stored their tips in a jar at home getting all of it seized because 15 years ago she had a marijuana possession charge while in college (which was likely why she's a waitress in the first place (but thats another issue)). Or people losing their cars because they got lost and drove down a "red light street" twice so they must clearly be looking for street workers. Not to mention states that border vegas seizing winnings of anybody they can pull over who decided to cash all or part of their winnings in hard cash and make the mistake of letting hte officer see it. (for the meme of it mostly)
- peteretep 6y ago
  Seem to be a lot of people downvoting this because they’re unhappy with the legal precedent being described, which is weird
  - vmception 6y ago
    That's how consensus works on the internet. Users use consensus as a proxy for accuracy, but it has no way of accomplishing that.
  - cynoclast 6y ago
    Too bad the legal precedent isn't here to defend itself isn't it?
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > cases can be levied against property directly This is where I (not from the US) stop and ask: Wait, what? Yeah, I've heard it before, but I never understood this part. Does the property go to the court and speak on its own behalf? Does it have a right to stay silent? How does the case work?
  - vmception 6y ago
    Correct, there are limited ways to argue on behalf of property. The court cases are filed like US v. $124,700 in US Currency https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6779603952724300245 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=677960395272430...
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      Is somebody notified? I guess the property owner knows about it, since it's taken, but is their presence required on court or can the matter be judged while the owner is under arrest?
      - vmception 6y ago
        Civil forfeiture cases are routinely filed in parallel to criminal cases. Criminal forfeiture also exists, which is not being considered controversial at this point in time. One of the bigger controversies around civil cases is that they are often filed while the owner is not charged with anything. In both civil and criminal issues, the human is often deprived of the very property they would use to pay a lawyer and help to defend themselves. By design. Solution is to have stuff that nobody including the state knows about. "I have nothing to hide" well you should.
        marcosdumay 6y ago
        Ok, so I understand that when there is enough evidence to arrest the property owner, there is also enough evidence for a criminal forfeiture, so my concern up there does not happen in practice. Also, whatever judgement happens, it's initiated by the owner, so there isn't an issue with timing. That clarifies a bit how it works. Anyway, the idea that just having large quantities of money creates strong suspicion of drug crimes that appears again and again on that linked document is beyond disgusting.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > Property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly. This is accurate insofar as it represents the current jurisprudence, but absolutely false in the moral or straightforward reading of the constitution. The 'takings' clause of the 5th amendment, for example: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" That seems to clearly establish that humans have a right to their private property not being taken from them. Whether the legal fiction is a case against my car, or "a Toyota Corolla" doesn't have any practical difference on the outcome. The government can seize my car without due process, Civil asset forfeiture is flat-out unconstitutional. The fact that is exists without due process or just compensation is wrong, and the current jurisprudence on it is simply wrong. It's rare for me to be willing to step out on a limb and say the courts are simply wrong on an issue, but civil asset forfeiture is a limb I will happily step out onto.
  - strbean 6y ago
    Judges are fallible. Actually, if you dig through the history of precedent surrounding any particular issue, you realize judges are incredibly fallible. There are stupid judges, corrupt judges, and judges that simply don't care that much. For this reason, the argument of "no, the courts said otherwise" with regards to jurisprudence can be particularly frustrating.
    - vmception 6y ago
      when referring to multiple federal circuits and the supreme court, their result absolutely is the reality. the more people bring these half baked cases in front of stupid judges, the more they keep crystallizing the reality.
      - strbean 6y ago
        > when referring to multiple federal circuits and the supreme court, their result absolutely is the reality. > the more people bring these half baked cases in front of stupid judges, the more they keep crystallizing the reality. Honestly, common law kind of sucks.
- anm89 6y ago
  Can you point out where the constitution gives an opinion on whether cases can be levied against property? It's funny because I did think I remembered something in the ammendments about due process.
- avs733 6y ago
  If property has no rights than the justice system should have no claim of authority over it. Property lacks agency, property lacks an opinion, property lacks an ability to express oversight and input on the system...therefore property should not be subject to that system. Same goes for juveniles, frankly. If you can't vote for the system or participate...why the heck can it take away your liberty? It already has.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >It isn't unconstitutional as the courts have affirmed over and over again. Well, the US courts had affirmed slavery as constitutional at some point too, time and again, until the 13th amendment. And then you had e.g. the declaration of independence and its "unalienable rights". What a farse. It makes sense to think about the spirit of a constitution, not just what some judges has historically or thus far accepted as such.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    It was explicitly constitutional. They managed to avoid the word "slave", but Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 explicitly distinguishes "free Persons" from "all other persons" (who only count for 3/5 when it comes to computing representatives). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise It also explicitly said that you can't escape "service or labor" just by going to a state that didn't allow it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Fugitive_Slave_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_Sta... They called it the Fugitive Slave Clause, even though the word doesn't appear in the Constitution. So yeah, that really wasn't just a matter of judges thinking about the "spirit" of the constitution. It was very clear that this was a slave nation. Bonus: it still is, even with the 13th amendment. It does use the word slavery, and then provides an exception for people convicted of a crime.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  You are correct in that CAF cases are against the property, and not the owner, and thus in that sense physical goods have no constitutional rights. But that doesn't mean that a CAF isn't an illegal seizure of property from someone who does have constitutional rights not to be deprived of their property without due process.
- potta_coffee 6y ago
  What about the fourth amendment then? Of course property doesn't have rights; people have rights to continue to possess their own property.
anonunivgrad 6y ago
The government cannot keep civilly forfeited assets unless it wins a civil case in court, the same process by which anyone can sue and take everything to your name if they win. It also has a long pedigree, being in continuous use before, during, and after the founding era, making it unlikely that it would violate the 4th Amendment.
- 14 6y ago
  That is such crap. Everyone knows a lot of the people they target can not afford a legal battle and will simply walk away and count their loses and the people doing the taking know this.
  - jackfoxy 6y ago
    It's worse than that. The government has essentially unlimited (time and money) resources to throw into a civil case. Even the most wealthy individuals are at a severe disadvantage. I'm not a legal scholar, but I find it bizarre the government can bring civil cases against individuals and corporations. They also do this to enforce environmental measures, a laudable goal. But as an ignorant layperson I prefer the government stick to defining and prosecuting what is illegal and stay our of civil law.
    - anonunivgrad 6y ago
      Criminal prosecutions are for the condemnation of moral wrongdoing. Law serves many functions aside from that.
  - ratsmack 6y ago
    This is why the level of "justice" you receive is directly proportional to your ability to pay a team of lawyers in many cases.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Civil asset forfeiture is a very specific legal process that can only be initiated by the government against assets seized in the alleged commission of (or derived from) criminal activity. Private citizens cannot use civil forfeiture against other private citizens. However, you are correct that the underlying legal theory has been around in some form for hundreds of years dating back to medieval England.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
It's gonna die because the leadership of the democratic party is mostly authoritarians and the leadership of the republican party is in the back pocket of law enforcement and party leadership is who controls the pac dollars which controls who gets reelected and who loses their primary.
- throw0238 6y ago
  It will get even bigger. "Defund the police" will turn police into for-profit self-funded organization :-)
  - justinzollars 6y ago
    That might not be a bad thing. The police would be responsible for their actions, rather than shielded by law.
    - quadrangle 6y ago
      Huh? Defunding the police doesn't change whether they are shielded by laws. Did you imagine the parent comment was describing "defund the police" meaning no more police and only having private security companies? That's not how I read it.
      - justinzollars 6y ago
        Huh? Read the comment above. This is in response.
        quadrangle 6y ago
        > It will get even bigger. "Defund the police" will turn police into for-profit self-funded organization I don't read that to mean that there will be no police and just private security companies. I read it to suggest there will still be police, protected by the same laws, able to abuse things in the same way, except they will rely entirely on their own funding via shit like Civil Asset Forfeiture
bsder 6y ago
Sadly, it doesn't go far enough. ANY funds taken by the criminal justice system should NOT be able to be used by the criminal justice system. Those funds should either go to a victim or be placed in an "overfund" that gets distributed back to the citizens of the state at the end of the year. This would stop all manner of abuses, including civil 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.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > If you don't like it, change it. That's what this bill is about.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Sure. I never said it shouldn't pass.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    But the government takes the property without first winning any sort of lawsuit.
ComputerGuru 6y ago
> Property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly. That is a ridiculous argument. Taking someone’s car or money isn’t “punishing the property” or “hurting the car’s feelings,” it’s depriving a citizen or resident of what is (until proven otherwise in a court of law) rightfully theirs and transgressing on their individual liberties. It is theft.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I agree with you but the parent’s point still stands. This is how the courts have allowed suits to go through in more than just civil forfeiture cases. If the property isn’t legally yours then you can’t possibly claim property ownership rights to it. So you “sue” the property and have all parties who believe they have a claim to it be parties in the lawsuit. It’s a quirk of the legal system. In practice it’s still the gov’t vs. the original “owner” fighting over who owns it. It can’t be theft until after the courts decide who owns it. Then it can be theft.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    Wrong. It's theft at the very moment that an unjustified seizure occurs. The recourse you have is to convince a court to declare it theft and force the taker to give it back. But the court's declaration is only a legal thing, not able to define reality.
    - ouid 6y ago
      Well, since property is an abstraction that is dependent on your relationship with the government, what you are calling reality is also a legal thing.
      - jtbayly 6y ago
        I’m not saying that it’s not also legal in nature. What I’m objecting to is philosophizing that ends up saying “It’s not wrong unless you get caught.”
- 6y ago
Retric 6y ago
Hogwash, property belongs to someone and it’s that person who has constitutional protections. The difference is people must actively defend the constitution, on it’s own it’s just a document without lawyers or legal standing to defend itself.
- vmception 6y ago
  > courts have affirmed over and over again I don't have emotions on this matter and I don't care what you think and I haven't stated my actual opinion. The authority on this matter are the courts. The courts have evaluated civil forfeiture under 4th amendment arguments 5th amendment arguments 6th amendment arguments 8th amendment arguments 14th amendment arguments and only found the 8th amendment argument against excessive fines to hold some weight, but not to undo civil asset forfeiture but only clarifying that the 8th amendment actually applies to the states. if you want the executive branches to act differently and the courts to rule differently then you have to change what the legislature allows them to do. like I wrote, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean we have to do it.
  - kbelder 6y ago
    I think the people arguing with you are simply stating that the judges who ruled that it is constitutional are _wrong_. It's a stance I agree with.
    - vmception 6y ago
      if only there was a completely different branch of government we could get to limit how the courts could rule, if someone figures it out they should do it and make an article about it i might even write a comment about how thats the most effective way to change the reality, I wonder if people will read that part though, what do you think?
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        The Supreme Court occasionally overturns precedent.
epage 6y ago
Have example cases re-affirming the constitutionality of civil forfeiture? It seems to run counter the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments, at minimum. This layman's reading and understanding is generally what people mean when they speak of "unconstitutional". Nuances found through the courts are then not "obvious" and more detail is helpful to have a helpful conversation on all sides.
- eganist 6y ago
  Upheld but with limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._United_States This was the push that got the snowball rolling, so to speak.
- vmception 6y ago
  The courts have evaluated civil forfeiture under 4th amendment arguments 5th amendment arguments 6th amendment arguments 8th amendment arguments 14th amendment arguments and only found the 8th amendment argument against excessive fines to hold some weight, but not to undo civil asset forfeiture but only clarifying that the 8th amendment actually applies to the states They file the case against the property, not the human. If we want a constitutional guarantee on the property then we need a new constitution with its own property based bill of rights the cases aren't on my clipboard but anyone passing by feel free to fill them in. The 8th amendment case was before the US Supreme Court this year or last, despite the positive ruling it did not get the man's property back until the state he was in re-ruled.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    If property doesn't have rights, how can the 8th ammendment protect it, yet it doesn't have protections under the others? The 4th explicitly requires the seizure of property to be based on at least probable cause. Just seems like a massive contradiction. I guess someone needs to file a civil rights suit because they were deprived of that property under the color of law. The 4th ammendment is quite clear that one is to be secure in their affects. Doesn't matter if the case was filed against the property, the effect was felt by the person.
  - 6y ago
donatj 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" Seems right there, in plain english, in the 4th Amendment. I don't know what you're on about.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  I suspect the gray area and disagreement comes out of the word "unreasonable", which looks much different to the suspect, the police, and the judicial system.
- jfengel 6y ago
  The problem is in the word "their". If they stole it, it's not theirs. If they bought it with stolen money, again, it's not theirs. Or at least, so goes the legal theory. It seems straightforward enough, until you realize that it basically shifts the burden of proof for any ownership to you. And that includes the recursive problem of the money you used to buy it, so merely having a receipt doesn't suffice. In a straightforward sense, it really does turn out to be that the word "their" is more complicated than it seems at first blush. But it's also clear that this complication is easily abused, and has been -- to a degree that courts should have stomped on long ago.
  - MrStonedOne 6y ago
    CAF is often used for properties that is theirs, and was bought with valid money, under the ""suspicion"" that the property was used for illegal things. One case that is an example is a waitress who stored their tips in a jar at home getting all of it seized because 15 years ago she had a marijuana possession charge while in college (which was likely why she's a waitress in the first place (but thats another issue)). Or people losing their cars because they got lost and drove down a "red light street" twice so they must clearly be looking for street workers. Not to mention states that border vegas seizing winnings of anybody they can pull over who decided to cash all or part of their winnings in hard cash and make the mistake of letting hte officer see it. (for the meme of it mostly)
peteretep 6y ago
Seem to be a lot of people downvoting this because they’re unhappy with the legal precedent being described, which is weird
- vmception 6y ago
  That's how consensus works on the internet. Users use consensus as a proxy for accuracy, but it has no way of accomplishing that.
- cynoclast 6y ago
  Too bad the legal precedent isn't here to defend itself isn't it?
marcosdumay 6y ago
> cases can be levied against property directly This is where I (not from the US) stop and ask: Wait, what? Yeah, I've heard it before, but I never understood this part. Does the property go to the court and speak on its own behalf? Does it have a right to stay silent? How does the case work?
- vmception 6y ago
  Correct, there are limited ways to argue on behalf of property. The court cases are filed like US v. $124,700 in US Currency https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6779603952724300245 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=677960395272430...
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    Is somebody notified? I guess the property owner knows about it, since it's taken, but is their presence required on court or can the matter be judged while the owner is under arrest?
    - vmception 6y ago
      Civil forfeiture cases are routinely filed in parallel to criminal cases. Criminal forfeiture also exists, which is not being considered controversial at this point in time. One of the bigger controversies around civil cases is that they are often filed while the owner is not charged with anything. In both civil and criminal issues, the human is often deprived of the very property they would use to pay a lawyer and help to defend themselves. By design. Solution is to have stuff that nobody including the state knows about. "I have nothing to hide" well you should.
      - marcosdumay 6y ago
        Ok, so I understand that when there is enough evidence to arrest the property owner, there is also enough evidence for a criminal forfeiture, so my concern up there does not happen in practice. Also, whatever judgement happens, it's initiated by the owner, so there isn't an issue with timing. That clarifies a bit how it works. Anyway, the idea that just having large quantities of money creates strong suspicion of drug crimes that appears again and again on that linked document is beyond disgusting.
ncallaway 6y ago
> Property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly. This is accurate insofar as it represents the current jurisprudence, but absolutely false in the moral or straightforward reading of the constitution. The 'takings' clause of the 5th amendment, for example: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" That seems to clearly establish that humans have a right to their private property not being taken from them. Whether the legal fiction is a case against my car, or "a Toyota Corolla" doesn't have any practical difference on the outcome. The government can seize my car without due process, Civil asset forfeiture is flat-out unconstitutional. The fact that is exists without due process or just compensation is wrong, and the current jurisprudence on it is simply wrong. It's rare for me to be willing to step out on a limb and say the courts are simply wrong on an issue, but civil asset forfeiture is a limb I will happily step out onto.
- strbean 6y ago
  Judges are fallible. Actually, if you dig through the history of precedent surrounding any particular issue, you realize judges are incredibly fallible. There are stupid judges, corrupt judges, and judges that simply don't care that much. For this reason, the argument of "no, the courts said otherwise" with regards to jurisprudence can be particularly frustrating.
  - vmception 6y ago
    when referring to multiple federal circuits and the supreme court, their result absolutely is the reality. the more people bring these half baked cases in front of stupid judges, the more they keep crystallizing the reality.
    - strbean 6y ago
      > when referring to multiple federal circuits and the supreme court, their result absolutely is the reality. > the more people bring these half baked cases in front of stupid judges, the more they keep crystallizing the reality. Honestly, common law kind of sucks.
anm89 6y ago
Can you point out where the constitution gives an opinion on whether cases can be levied against property? It's funny because I did think I remembered something in the ammendments about due process.
avs733 6y ago
If property has no rights than the justice system should have no claim of authority over it. Property lacks agency, property lacks an opinion, property lacks an ability to express oversight and input on the system...therefore property should not be subject to that system. Same goes for juveniles, frankly. If you can't vote for the system or participate...why the heck can it take away your liberty? It already has.
coldtea 6y ago
>It isn't unconstitutional as the courts have affirmed over and over again. Well, the US courts had affirmed slavery as constitutional at some point too, time and again, until the 13th amendment. And then you had e.g. the declaration of independence and its "unalienable rights". What a farse. It makes sense to think about the spirit of a constitution, not just what some judges has historically or thus far accepted as such.
- jfengel 6y ago
  It was explicitly constitutional. They managed to avoid the word "slave", but Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 explicitly distinguishes "free Persons" from "all other persons" (who only count for 3/5 when it comes to computing representatives). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise It also explicitly said that you can't escape "service or labor" just by going to a state that didn't allow it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Fugitive_Slave_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_Sta... They called it the Fugitive Slave Clause, even though the word doesn't appear in the Constitution. So yeah, that really wasn't just a matter of judges thinking about the "spirit" of the constitution. It was very clear that this was a slave nation. Bonus: it still is, even with the 13th amendment. It does use the word slavery, and then provides an exception for people convicted of a crime.
gamblor956 6y ago
You are correct in that CAF cases are against the property, and not the owner, and thus in that sense physical goods have no constitutional rights. But that doesn't mean that a CAF isn't an illegal seizure of property from someone who does have constitutional rights not to be deprived of their property without due process.
potta_coffee 6y ago
What about the fourth amendment then? Of course property doesn't have rights; people have rights to continue to possess their own property.

anonunivgrad 6y ago

The government cannot keep civilly forfeited assets unless it wins a civil case in court, the same process by which anyone can sue and take everything to your name if they win. It also has a long pedigree, being in continuous use before, during, and after the founding era, making it unlikely that it would violate the 4th Amendment.

14 6y ago
That is such crap. Everyone knows a lot of the people they target can not afford a legal battle and will simply walk away and count their loses and the people doing the taking know this.
- jackfoxy 6y ago
  It's worse than that. The government has essentially unlimited (time and money) resources to throw into a civil case. Even the most wealthy individuals are at a severe disadvantage. I'm not a legal scholar, but I find it bizarre the government can bring civil cases against individuals and corporations. They also do this to enforce environmental measures, a laudable goal. But as an ignorant layperson I prefer the government stick to defining and prosecuting what is illegal and stay our of civil law.
  - anonunivgrad 6y ago
    Criminal prosecutions are for the condemnation of moral wrongdoing. Law serves many functions aside from that.
- ratsmack 6y ago
  This is why the level of "justice" you receive is directly proportional to your ability to pay a team of lawyers in many cases.
gamblor956 6y ago
Civil asset forfeiture is a very specific legal process that can only be initiated by the government against assets seized in the alleged commission of (or derived from) criminal activity. Private citizens cannot use civil forfeiture against other private citizens. However, you are correct that the underlying legal theory has been around in some form for hundreds of years dating back to medieval England.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

It's gonna die because the leadership of the democratic party is mostly authoritarians and the leadership of the republican party is in the back pocket of law enforcement and party leadership is who controls the pac dollars which controls who gets reelected and who loses their primary.

throw0238 6y ago
It will get even bigger. "Defund the police" will turn police into for-profit self-funded organization :-)
- justinzollars 6y ago
  That might not be a bad thing. The police would be responsible for their actions, rather than shielded by law.
  - quadrangle 6y ago
    Huh? Defunding the police doesn't change whether they are shielded by laws. Did you imagine the parent comment was describing "defund the police" meaning no more police and only having private security companies? That's not how I read it.
    - justinzollars 6y ago
      Huh? Read the comment above. This is in response.
      - quadrangle 6y ago
        > It will get even bigger. "Defund the police" will turn police into for-profit self-funded organization I don't read that to mean that there will be no police and just private security companies. I read it to suggest there will still be police, protected by the same laws, able to abuse things in the same way, except they will rely entirely on their own funding via shit like Civil Asset Forfeiture

bsder 6y ago

Sadly, it doesn't go far enough. ANY funds taken by the criminal justice system should NOT be able to be used by the criminal justice system. Those funds should either go to a victim or be placed in an "overfund" that gets distributed back to the citizens of the state at the end of the year. This would stop all manner of abuses, including civil forfeiture.