11 ms·

Supreme Court expands meaning of 'seizure' under 4th Amendment

96 points by gscott 6y ago

adventured 6y ago
Now let's get some further federal protections at all levels restricting property theft by the police (aka "asset forfeiture"; I suppose when a cop murders you they might prefer to call it life forfeiture).
- rectang 6y ago
  While your second sentence is dramatic, the analogy it draws appropriately illustrates the outrageous impunity that police enjoy with regard to "asset forfeiture". It's hard to believe that such abuse is allowed to continue in a country ostensibly governed by the rule of law.
  - FpUser 6y ago
    It is often said "we are a nation of laws". I do not recall anything about laws being just.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Given what we've seen happen with the CIA, I'm pretty sure that it's not even "ostensibly" any longer. The US is emphatically not a country with the rule of law, in the macro (there are large government organizations that act with impunity) or the micro (police kill and rape on a local level with impunity).
infogulch 6y ago
I don't find Gorsuch's quoted counterposition convincing. It seems to me that expanding "unreasonable seizure" to include "unreasonable attempted seizure" pretty easy logic to follow, assuming that's a valid summary of the decision. Now if we can get a case to find the same for "civil asset forfeiture" / literally legal highway robbery by police, that would be great.
- dexterdog 6y ago
  I'm still waiting for a case to come up where a person kills a police officer for stealing from him in a civil asset forfeiture situation. They wouldn't want me on that jury.
  - dooglius 6y ago
    Juries don't sent precedents, you'd want to vote to convict if you want the matter appealed for the SCOTUS to hear it
    - 1cvmask 6y ago
      Maybe he wants to convict and that’s why you wouldn’t want him on the jury????
    - raoa 6y ago
      Even better is the jury could refuse to convict and the question of jury nullification could be taken up by the Supreme Court.
      - Godel_unicode 6y ago
        Is there a question of jury nullification?
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > the question of jury nullification could be taken up by the Supreme Court The “question” of jury nullification is a fundamental flaw of the jury system. Legalising it invites mob rule. Directly challenging it undermines the prerogative of a jury. So...we just don’t talk about it. If it were to be solved, it would involve the abolition of the jury system. Which nobody wants.
        cgriswald 6y ago
        Judges talk about it all the time, usually in less direct language, when they give the jury their instructions. The solution is: judges talk about it, but can't really stop a jury from doing it. I don't think it is accurate to define it as 'mob rule.' Generally, in mob rule, the mob decides who is guilty and punishes them arbitrarily. In jury nullification, the mob decides who is technically guilty but unjustly punished (because the law is bad, because the punishment is too severed, etc..) I won't lie to a judge or to anyone in court. But I won't ever convict someone if the death penalty is on the line. I expect to be excused, but if not... That isn't 'mob rule.' That's a power granted to me as a juror by the system. Presidents and Congress have grasped far more power than that without explicitly (and sometimes without even implicitly) being granted that power.
refurb 6y ago
This seems like a very specific argument but at first glance seems reasonable? If the police take actions to seize a person, but fail, they can still be held accountable for an unreasonable seizure. Otherwise you'd get into a weird scenario where the government could do everything it wanted to conduct a seizure (wiretaps, no-fly-lists, etc) but as long as they didn't seize you, you couldn't sue them in court.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  I agree. Kavanaugh’s argument seems to be that it’s not seizure because they did a bad job at it. If the police arrest you, you can argue in court that it was wrongful. If they chase you, shoot you, stick you in the trunk of a car, but you escape, then there was no seizure so you cannot sue. Note, I am sure that he, Alito, and Thomas are doing what they think is right for the country. I just think they are wrong.
  - gizmo686 6y ago
    Kavanaugh voted with the majority (that it was a seizure). The dissent was Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    That was Neil Gs opinion not Kavanaughs. Brett managed to get this one right. Thomas managed to find a way to be on the wrong side again of course.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      Read the full opinion. It's not as cut and dry as you think. Thomas also actually asked questions during oral argument. For anyone who is not a huge SCOTUS nerd, Thomas asking questions during oral is exceedingly rare but has increased in frequency over the last 2-3 years. A lot of people don't like him, for a range of reasons, but I tend to enjoy reading his opinions and hearing his questions (when he asks them) even if I disagree with them.
duxup 6y ago
Seems pretty logical. The idea that because the police wrongfully shot, but failed to subdue this person the legal process is more difficult is sort of absurd. Of course they still have to prove the police acted "unreasonably".
kmonsen 6y ago
I of course don't have all the facts of the case, but at first glance it seems unreasonable that a fleeing suspect (and in this case not a suspect at all) is actually shot multiple times. Is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects? It is of course possible that she charged them or something, like I said don't have all the facts here, just wondering if that is OK. Edit: I was not trying to make a value statement (although I think it’s wrong), but wondering what the law is. That got answered, so thank you.
- duxup 6y ago
  Well SCOTUS isn't addressing any of that, just ruling that she can sue. Now she gets a case and can try to prove "unreasonable".
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects? This is the job of the legislature (EDIT: and elected executive). Not the court. The court decides if it’s legal. Blurring those lines is how you ruin the rule of law.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    If nothing else, the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment. It's probably also covered by the "unreasonable" part of "unread seizure." Either way, it is well within the scope of the courts.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment These issues are complicated. If you think something is fairly obvious, you are missing colour. (My feelings are different for a legislator.) My freedom to not get shot interferes with your freedom to be protected by police. Until recently, criminals were hanged by county legal functions. That line has shifted. Policing in America is too violent, but it is not apparent that it is illegally violent.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Roberts noted she would still have to prove the police action was unreasonable That this lawsuit hasn't already shown that the action was unreasonable makes me think it was intentionally designed to test this issue in the Supreme Court, which my cynical nature makes me think there's some unseen consequence of this ruling.
- duxup 6y ago
  >That this lawsuit hasn't already shown Well the lawsuit wasn't able to proceed because they were told they could not sue based on the 4 the amendment...so yeah they couldn't possibly prove "shown" anything legally yet. Now they can proceed.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    And now they can make the argument that the lawsuit is invalid as the action was reasonable. The order these challenges were made is suspect, they didn't have to address this issue first.
    - adgjlsfhk1 6y ago
      That's not how this works. The state moved to dismiss on one set of grounds. That dismissal was granted by the lower court. From there, the case can't proceed until those grounds are settled. This type of thing is very common. It's exactly the same as why standing is established before evidence in civil cases.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - gizmo686 6y ago
      The case was dismissed with a summary judgement, which is one of the earliest points a case can be dismissed. Arguing that the action was unreasonable is highly fact specific, and so cannot be done in summary judgement. In contrast, arguing that no seizure occured requires to finding of fact, because there was no dispute of any relevent fact, and so is done first.
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.is/u6jXB https://archive.is/u6jXB

96 points by gscott 6y ago

Now let's get some further federal protections at all levels restricting property theft by the police (aka "asset forfeiture"; I suppose when a cop murders you they might prefer to call it life forfeiture).

rectang 6y ago
While your second sentence is dramatic, the analogy it draws appropriately illustrates the outrageous impunity that police enjoy with regard to "asset forfeiture". It's hard to believe that such abuse is allowed to continue in a country ostensibly governed by the rule of law.
- FpUser 6y ago
  It is often said "we are a nation of laws". I do not recall anything about laws being just.
- sneak 6y ago
  Given what we've seen happen with the CIA, I'm pretty sure that it's not even "ostensibly" any longer. The US is emphatically not a country with the rule of law, in the macro (there are large government organizations that act with impunity) or the micro (police kill and rape on a local level with impunity).

infogulch 6y ago

I don't find Gorsuch's quoted counterposition convincing. It seems to me that expanding "unreasonable seizure" to include "unreasonable attempted seizure" pretty easy logic to follow, assuming that's a valid summary of the decision. Now if we can get a case to find the same for "civil asset forfeiture" / literally legal highway robbery by police, that would be great.

dexterdog 6y ago
I'm still waiting for a case to come up where a person kills a police officer for stealing from him in a civil asset forfeiture situation. They wouldn't want me on that jury.
- dooglius 6y ago
  Juries don't sent precedents, you'd want to vote to convict if you want the matter appealed for the SCOTUS to hear it
  - 1cvmask 6y ago
    Maybe he wants to convict and that’s why you wouldn’t want him on the jury????
  - raoa 6y ago
    Even better is the jury could refuse to convict and the question of jury nullification could be taken up by the Supreme Court.
    - Godel_unicode 6y ago
      Is there a question of jury nullification?
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > the question of jury nullification could be taken up by the Supreme Court The “question” of jury nullification is a fundamental flaw of the jury system. Legalising it invites mob rule. Directly challenging it undermines the prerogative of a jury. So...we just don’t talk about it. If it were to be solved, it would involve the abolition of the jury system. Which nobody wants.
      - cgriswald 6y ago
        Judges talk about it all the time, usually in less direct language, when they give the jury their instructions. The solution is: judges talk about it, but can't really stop a jury from doing it. I don't think it is accurate to define it as 'mob rule.' Generally, in mob rule, the mob decides who is guilty and punishes them arbitrarily. In jury nullification, the mob decides who is technically guilty but unjustly punished (because the law is bad, because the punishment is too severed, etc..) I won't lie to a judge or to anyone in court. But I won't ever convict someone if the death penalty is on the line. I expect to be excused, but if not... That isn't 'mob rule.' That's a power granted to me as a juror by the system. Presidents and Congress have grasped far more power than that without explicitly (and sometimes without even implicitly) being granted that power.

refurb 6y ago

This seems like a very specific argument but at first glance seems reasonable? If the police take actions to seize a person, but fail, they can still be held accountable for an unreasonable seizure. Otherwise you'd get into a weird scenario where the government could do everything it wanted to conduct a seizure (wiretaps, no-fly-lists, etc) but as long as they didn't seize you, you couldn't sue them in court.

Hnrobert42 6y ago
I agree. Kavanaugh’s argument seems to be that it’s not seizure because they did a bad job at it. If the police arrest you, you can argue in court that it was wrongful. If they chase you, shoot you, stick you in the trunk of a car, but you escape, then there was no seizure so you cannot sue. Note, I am sure that he, Alito, and Thomas are doing what they think is right for the country. I just think they are wrong.
- gizmo686 6y ago
  Kavanaugh voted with the majority (that it was a seizure). The dissent was Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  That was Neil Gs opinion not Kavanaughs. Brett managed to get this one right. Thomas managed to find a way to be on the wrong side again of course.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    Read the full opinion. It's not as cut and dry as you think. Thomas also actually asked questions during oral argument. For anyone who is not a huge SCOTUS nerd, Thomas asking questions during oral is exceedingly rare but has increased in frequency over the last 2-3 years. A lot of people don't like him, for a range of reasons, but I tend to enjoy reading his opinions and hearing his questions (when he asks them) even if I disagree with them.

duxup 6y ago

Seems pretty logical. The idea that because the police wrongfully shot, but failed to subdue this person the legal process is more difficult is sort of absurd. Of course they still have to prove the police acted "unreasonably".

kmonsen 6y ago

I of course don't have all the facts of the case, but at first glance it seems unreasonable that a fleeing suspect (and in this case not a suspect at all) is actually shot multiple times. Is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects? It is of course possible that she charged them or something, like I said don't have all the facts here, just wondering if that is OK. Edit: I was not trying to make a value statement (although I think it’s wrong), but wondering what the law is. That got answered, so thank you.

duxup 6y ago
Well SCOTUS isn't addressing any of that, just ruling that she can sue. Now she gets a case and can try to prove "unreasonable".
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects? This is the job of the legislature (EDIT: and elected executive). Not the court. The court decides if it’s legal. Blurring those lines is how you ruin the rule of law.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  If nothing else, the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment. It's probably also covered by the "unreasonable" part of "unread seizure." Either way, it is well within the scope of the courts.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment These issues are complicated. If you think something is fairly obvious, you are missing colour. (My feelings are different for a legislator.) My freedom to not get shot interferes with your freedom to be protected by police. Until recently, criminals were hanged by county legal functions. That line has shifted. Policing in America is too violent, but it is not apparent that it is illegally violent.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>Roberts noted she would still have to prove the police action was unreasonable That this lawsuit hasn't already shown that the action was unreasonable makes me think it was intentionally designed to test this issue in the Supreme Court, which my cynical nature makes me think there's some unseen consequence of this ruling.

duxup 6y ago
>That this lawsuit hasn't already shown Well the lawsuit wasn't able to proceed because they were told they could not sue based on the 4 the amendment...so yeah they couldn't possibly prove "shown" anything legally yet. Now they can proceed.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  And now they can make the argument that the lawsuit is invalid as the action was reasonable. The order these challenges were made is suspect, they didn't have to address this issue first.
  - adgjlsfhk1 6y ago
    That's not how this works. The state moved to dismiss on one set of grounds. That dismissal was granted by the lower court. From there, the case can't proceed until those grounds are settled. This type of thing is very common. It's exactly the same as why standing is established before evidence in civil cases.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - gizmo686 6y ago
    The case was dismissed with a summary judgement, which is one of the earliest points a case can be dismissed. Arguing that the action was unreasonable is highly fact specific, and so cannot be done in summary judgement. In contrast, arguing that no seizure occured requires to finding of fact, because there was no dispute of any relevent fact, and so is done first.

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.is/u6jXB https://archive.is/u6jXB