18 ms·

Civil forfeiture is a direct and obvious violation of the US Constitution and shouldn't even exist under the USA legal system and is dangerous to the US legal s

Civil forfeiture is a direct and obvious violation of the US Constitution and shouldn't even exist under the USA legal system and is dangerous to the US legal system: "Article the sixth... 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." Police under the US Constitution have to go before a judge and court and make an Oath under perjury of law describing the items to be seized. There has to be a justification and supported by affirmation meaning evidence and supporting facts. In the case of the building that was seized it was operating a perfectly legal business under state law. It had the necessary licenses and permits. There needs to be a direct challenge against this type of extra-judicial seizure in the US Supreme Court as it's a clear challenge to the entire operation of the rule of law and legal system.

jjoonathan 4y ago
I know that courts just interpret the constitution to mean what they want, but they really outdid themselves on this one. > 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.
- oceanghost 4y ago
  We "follow the constitution" for abortion rights but when it comes to NSA surveillance we look the other way.
  - avs733 4y ago
    lets just drop the pretense of even using that phrase To me it is disqualifying for those analyses being taken seriously. If you are claiming that you are doing no interpretation and others are, that just not credible within the law. Of COURSE they are interpreting - that's literally the job. The idea that you aren't interpreting and instead are only divining what others meant is so incredible that it needs to stop being repeated. Stop repeating the propaganda because it just normalizes a ridiculous phrase.
    - oceanghost 4y ago
      My point was, the powers that be will make any excuse so long as it increases state power.
      - vkou 4y ago
        And in this country, 'state power' often includes 'the power of the states (good state power) to tyrannize their residents as they see fit, without any federal (bad state power) oversight.'
      - avs733 4y ago
        Powers will use any excuse, the excuse is a distraction. It’s much clearer and more effective to properly name what they are doing rather than indulge their demand of what ever silly term they invent to justify it. There is no such thing as textualism, there is just (1) a belief that your are doing a thing you labeled textualism but is philosophically incompatible with the concept of the law or (2) lying. Anything from the right in the us as it relates to the constitution is (2).
  - kolanos 4y ago
    Abortion isn't covered in the U.S. Constitution, aside from perhaps a right to life? Are you referring to Roe v. Wade? If so, that's a court decision.
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      roe v wade also only really concerns itself on whether it is a federal or state level issue.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        Hmm, I don't think that's accurate. Roe v Wade did say that Texas's statutes against abortion violated the fundamental right to privacy found in the 14th amendment. If Roe v Wade had simply said "It's a federal issue, it's up to Congress to pass an amendment if they want it changed", then I think you'd be right. But Roe v Wade went further than that, with all the talk about pregnancy trimester nonsense. I buy into the premise of a right to privacy being derived from the 14th Amendment, but there's certainly nothing about trimesters in that amendment; it reeks of the court trying legislate. Either this right to privacy exists or it doesn't, it shouldn't be conditional on trimesters. I think this is where they fucked up. Anyway, now Congress has to do what they should have done 50 years ago and sort this mess out the proper way.
        sophacles 4y ago
        You should try reading the constitution some time - there's an amendment that disagrees with your reasoning. It's called the 9th amendment and it literally says that there are rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution.
        robonerd 4y ago
        I think you should read my comment again. I agree with the premise of a right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment. It you understand that I understand that and are trying to draw my attention to something else, then I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. What I find suspect is the court seemingly to invent a restriction to such an inferred right, the trimester rule.
thaway2839 4y ago
It clearly isn't a direct and obvious violation. Even ignoring any say the rest of the Constitution has on civil forfeiture, even the parts that you quote do not prevent civil forfeitures on their own. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" The rub here is "unreasonable". The fact that the constitution explicitly proscribes "unreasonable" seizures means it also allows "reasonable" seizures. So there is no clear answer here because unreasonable is completely subjective.
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s only ambiguous if you ignore the clear intent of what was written. Just like how the right to a “speedy” trial somehow allows them to be delayed for over a year. Sorry the language isn’t ambiguous, the language is being ignored.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    "Shall not be infringed" is another one that is commonly interpreted quite differently than the most plain reading would suggest. (I say this as someone who does not own a firearm, so this is probably not gun-nuttery.)
    - RajT88 4y ago
      The modern pro-gun movement has erased the words "well-regulated militia" as well. The thinking of course is everyone could potentially join a militia, therefore everyone is defacto covered under the second amendment.
      - dontcare007 4y ago
        Nah, well related militia was not a restriction on the right, it was a reason for everyone to have the right. You have to remember that the Constitution doesn't give the people rights, it delineates the governments rights. The 1st 10 amendment's were added because the anti- federalists were (rightly) worried that the government would misappropriated all powers and eventually the people would no longer be free. They were basically a list of rights for a minimum viable free society.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
arcticbull 4y ago
The workaround under which civil asset forfeiture operates is that they're not charging the property owner - or the property holder - with anything. They're bringing a civil case against the property itself (jurisdiction in rem). The property itself is the defendant. [1, 2] Which leads to some pretty hilarious case titles: "United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls" [edit] "South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats" [edit] "United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster" In my opinion this tactic should be illegal. [edit] As far as I know this only really exists in the US, and in Canadian admiralty law (so, only in the US). [1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/terrorism-and-illicit-finance/asset-forfeiture/forfeiture-overview https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/terrorism-and-illici... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > The property itself is the defendant Hope it has a good lawyer then I guess?
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Hah. Boxes don't have a right to representation.
    - ASalazarMX 4y ago
      If only the owner was reachable to answer for the boxes instead.
- dimal 4y ago
  How on earth is this able to stand? It’s absurd. Have challenges made it to the Supreme Court and lost?
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Customs /international shipments. There is a long history of seizing illegal or suspect material at boarder crossings where the actual owner/importer is unknown or not available. A funny-named lawsuit against a box is significantly better than the alternative: zero legal process and no case recorded anywhere.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
Here is a lengthy and relatively accessible discussion of how the mechanics work. It’s essentially a byproduct of the language in the Controlled Substances Act and a few procedural tricks. Aka another way the war on drugs has harmed us at a fundamental, moral, and constitutional level. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/the-constitutionality-of-civil-forfeiture https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/the-constitutionality...
martincmartin 4y ago
> There needs to be a direct challenge against this type of extra-judicial seizure in the US Supreme Court as it's a clear challenge to the entire operation of the rule of law and legal system. There has been, and the Supreme Court upheld it. As I recall, they didn't even bother hearing the case.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Didn't hear /= upheld
Animats 4y ago
That argument might actually hold up with the current originalist Supreme Court. It's worth pursuing. There are upsides to constitutional originalism. There's no reason the Fourth Amendment shouldn't be taken as literally as the Second.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > That argument might actually hold up with the current originalist Supreme Court. It's worth pursuing. There are upsides to constitutional originalism. There's no reason the Fourth Amendment shouldn't be taken as literally as the Second. You are confusing originalism with textualism (there is an argument that the current Court’s dominant philosophy [or mode of rationalization, for the more cynical] is both originalist and textualist, but your particular argument is more of an appeal to textualism than originalism.)
anotheracctfo 4y ago
"Do not quote laws to we who hold swords."
zerocrates 4y ago
The Fourth Amendment is tricky... it's got that word "unreasonable" you can just drive a truck through. And all the stuff about particularity of warrants is nice, but it doesn't actually lay out when warrants are required.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  This is why Legalese was invented. They have to be as explicit as possible to avoid any possible interpretation of what was written other than what was actually meant. A legal document with any phrasing that is "subject to interpretation" will eventually be interpreted in a way the origin author did not intend. "Unreasonable" is a highly subjective term and should not exist in legal documents.
throwaway894345 4y ago
Seems like the ACLU should go to bat here. Isn't this exactly the sort of thing they exist to do?
vmception 4y ago
Since it has been ruled constitutional, that leaves two options: 1) change all state laws to nuke the practice 2) leverage the practice much more heavily such that more important and influential people want to nuke it
- zugi 4y ago
  > change all state laws to nuke the practice Even that's just a start. According to https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/12/19/cops-cant-ignore-new-mexicos-ban-on-civil-forfeiture-court-rules/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/12/19/cops-can..., when one state banned civil forfeiture, it was so profitable that several cities kept doing it in violation of the state law, until courts finally forced them to stop 3 years later. So next the federal DEA stepped in. Since the federal government still practices civil forfeiture in the state, local police agencies are encouraged to tip off the DEA to any property that might be federally seizable, and then the DEA pays kickbacks to the local police force that provided the tip. This all sounds like racketeering and conspiracy to me. But you see, when the federal government does it, it's NOT racketeering and conspiracy.
  - vmception 4y ago
    yeah the fed profit sharing program is a real big one
coryfklein 4y ago
Let's say my vehicle is stolen, and police find a vehicle at my neighbor's house with the identical make, model, and year but with the VIN sanded off. And this neighbor just so happens to operate a shipping company that specializes in shipping vehicles out of the country, but has never been convicted of anything criminal. How would you say we should handle this scenario? We have a good reason to believe that the property is actually mine, and also that if it is not seized soon then it will be lost forever. (Since, as we all know, court rulings happen on much longer time scales.) If you have an overly aggressive civil forfeiture law then the police can seize things when they shouldn't. But if you have none, then don't you hamstring law enforcement unnecessarily, and instead provide greater incentive for crime?
- jdkee 4y ago
  They can get a warrant based on probable cause signed by a judge.
- jimrandomh 4y ago
  I think you have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what civil forfeiture is about. Civil forfeiture would mean the police take the car, don't return it to the rightful owner, and don't charge the thieves with a crime. Police don't need civil forfeiture to hold evidence in advance of pressing charges, or to recover stolen property and return it to its rightful owner. They only need civil forfeiture if they intend to keep the car for themselves.

jjoonathan 4y ago

I know that courts just interpret the constitution to mean what they want, but they really outdid themselves on this one. > 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.

oceanghost 4y ago
We "follow the constitution" for abortion rights but when it comes to NSA surveillance we look the other way.
- avs733 4y ago
  lets just drop the pretense of even using that phrase To me it is disqualifying for those analyses being taken seriously. If you are claiming that you are doing no interpretation and others are, that just not credible within the law. Of COURSE they are interpreting - that's literally the job. The idea that you aren't interpreting and instead are only divining what others meant is so incredible that it needs to stop being repeated. Stop repeating the propaganda because it just normalizes a ridiculous phrase.
  - oceanghost 4y ago
    My point was, the powers that be will make any excuse so long as it increases state power.
    - vkou 4y ago
      And in this country, 'state power' often includes 'the power of the states (good state power) to tyrannize their residents as they see fit, without any federal (bad state power) oversight.'
    - avs733 4y ago
      Powers will use any excuse, the excuse is a distraction. It’s much clearer and more effective to properly name what they are doing rather than indulge their demand of what ever silly term they invent to justify it. There is no such thing as textualism, there is just (1) a belief that your are doing a thing you labeled textualism but is philosophically incompatible with the concept of the law or (2) lying. Anything from the right in the us as it relates to the constitution is (2).
- kolanos 4y ago
  Abortion isn't covered in the U.S. Constitution, aside from perhaps a right to life? Are you referring to Roe v. Wade? If so, that's a court decision.
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    roe v wade also only really concerns itself on whether it is a federal or state level issue.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      Hmm, I don't think that's accurate. Roe v Wade did say that Texas's statutes against abortion violated the fundamental right to privacy found in the 14th amendment. If Roe v Wade had simply said "It's a federal issue, it's up to Congress to pass an amendment if they want it changed", then I think you'd be right. But Roe v Wade went further than that, with all the talk about pregnancy trimester nonsense. I buy into the premise of a right to privacy being derived from the 14th Amendment, but there's certainly nothing about trimesters in that amendment; it reeks of the court trying legislate. Either this right to privacy exists or it doesn't, it shouldn't be conditional on trimesters. I think this is where they fucked up. Anyway, now Congress has to do what they should have done 50 years ago and sort this mess out the proper way.
      - sophacles 4y ago
        You should try reading the constitution some time - there's an amendment that disagrees with your reasoning. It's called the 9th amendment and it literally says that there are rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution.
        robonerd 4y ago
        I think you should read my comment again. I agree with the premise of a right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment. It you understand that I understand that and are trying to draw my attention to something else, then I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. What I find suspect is the court seemingly to invent a restriction to such an inferred right, the trimester rule.

thaway2839 4y ago

It clearly isn't a direct and obvious violation. Even ignoring any say the rest of the Constitution has on civil forfeiture, even the parts that you quote do not prevent civil forfeitures on their own. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" The rub here is "unreasonable". The fact that the constitution explicitly proscribes "unreasonable" seizures means it also allows "reasonable" seizures. So there is no clear answer here because unreasonable is completely subjective.

Retric 4y ago
It’s only ambiguous if you ignore the clear intent of what was written. Just like how the right to a “speedy” trial somehow allows them to be delayed for over a year. Sorry the language isn’t ambiguous, the language is being ignored.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  "Shall not be infringed" is another one that is commonly interpreted quite differently than the most plain reading would suggest. (I say this as someone who does not own a firearm, so this is probably not gun-nuttery.)
  - RajT88 4y ago
    The modern pro-gun movement has erased the words "well-regulated militia" as well. The thinking of course is everyone could potentially join a militia, therefore everyone is defacto covered under the second amendment.
    - dontcare007 4y ago
      Nah, well related militia was not a restriction on the right, it was a reason for everyone to have the right. You have to remember that the Constitution doesn't give the people rights, it delineates the governments rights. The 1st 10 amendment's were added because the anti- federalists were (rightly) worried that the government would misappropriated all powers and eventually the people would no longer be free. They were basically a list of rights for a minimum viable free society.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

arcticbull 4y ago

The workaround under which civil asset forfeiture operates is that they're not charging the property owner - or the property holder - with anything. They're bringing a civil case against the property itself (jurisdiction in rem). The property itself is the defendant. [1, 2] Which leads to some pretty hilarious case titles: "United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls" [edit] "South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats" [edit] "United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster" In my opinion this tactic should be illegal. [edit] As far as I know this only really exists in the US, and in Canadian admiralty law (so, only in the US). [1] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/terrorism-and-illicit-finance/asset-forfeiture/forfeiture-overview https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/terrorism-and-illici... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

the_only_law 4y ago
> The property itself is the defendant Hope it has a good lawyer then I guess?
- thfuran 4y ago
  Hah. Boxes don't have a right to representation.
  - ASalazarMX 4y ago
    If only the owner was reachable to answer for the boxes instead.
dimal 4y ago
How on earth is this able to stand? It’s absurd. Have challenges made it to the Supreme Court and lost?
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Customs /international shipments. There is a long history of seizing illegal or suspect material at boarder crossings where the actual owner/importer is unknown or not available. A funny-named lawsuit against a box is significantly better than the alternative: zero legal process and no case recorded anywhere.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

Here is a lengthy and relatively accessible discussion of how the mechanics work. It’s essentially a byproduct of the language in the Controlled Substances Act and a few procedural tricks. Aka another way the war on drugs has harmed us at a fundamental, moral, and constitutional level. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/the-constitutionality-of-civil-forfeiture https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/the-constitutionality...

martincmartin 4y ago

> There needs to be a direct challenge against this type of extra-judicial seizure in the US Supreme Court as it's a clear challenge to the entire operation of the rule of law and legal system. There has been, and the Supreme Court upheld it. As I recall, they didn't even bother hearing the case.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Didn't hear /= upheld

Animats 4y ago

That argument might actually hold up with the current originalist Supreme Court. It's worth pursuing. There are upsides to constitutional originalism. There's no reason the Fourth Amendment shouldn't be taken as literally as the Second.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> That argument might actually hold up with the current originalist Supreme Court. It's worth pursuing. There are upsides to constitutional originalism. There's no reason the Fourth Amendment shouldn't be taken as literally as the Second. You are confusing originalism with textualism (there is an argument that the current Court’s dominant philosophy [or mode of rationalization, for the more cynical] is both originalist and textualist, but your particular argument is more of an appeal to textualism than originalism.)

anotheracctfo 4y ago

"Do not quote laws to we who hold swords."

zerocrates 4y ago

The Fourth Amendment is tricky... it's got that word "unreasonable" you can just drive a truck through. And all the stuff about particularity of warrants is nice, but it doesn't actually lay out when warrants are required.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
This is why Legalese was invented. They have to be as explicit as possible to avoid any possible interpretation of what was written other than what was actually meant. A legal document with any phrasing that is "subject to interpretation" will eventually be interpreted in a way the origin author did not intend. "Unreasonable" is a highly subjective term and should not exist in legal documents.

throwaway894345 4y ago

Seems like the ACLU should go to bat here. Isn't this exactly the sort of thing they exist to do?

vmception 4y ago

Since it has been ruled constitutional, that leaves two options: 1) change all state laws to nuke the practice 2) leverage the practice much more heavily such that more important and influential people want to nuke it

zugi 4y ago
> change all state laws to nuke the practice Even that's just a start. According to https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/12/19/cops-cant-ignore-new-mexicos-ban-on-civil-forfeiture-court-rules/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/12/19/cops-can..., when one state banned civil forfeiture, it was so profitable that several cities kept doing it in violation of the state law, until courts finally forced them to stop 3 years later. So next the federal DEA stepped in. Since the federal government still practices civil forfeiture in the state, local police agencies are encouraged to tip off the DEA to any property that might be federally seizable, and then the DEA pays kickbacks to the local police force that provided the tip. This all sounds like racketeering and conspiracy to me. But you see, when the federal government does it, it's NOT racketeering and conspiracy.
- vmception 4y ago
  yeah the fed profit sharing program is a real big one

coryfklein 4y ago

Let's say my vehicle is stolen, and police find a vehicle at my neighbor's house with the identical make, model, and year but with the VIN sanded off. And this neighbor just so happens to operate a shipping company that specializes in shipping vehicles out of the country, but has never been convicted of anything criminal. How would you say we should handle this scenario? We have a good reason to believe that the property is actually mine, and also that if it is not seized soon then it will be lost forever. (Since, as we all know, court rulings happen on much longer time scales.) If you have an overly aggressive civil forfeiture law then the police can seize things when they shouldn't. But if you have none, then don't you hamstring law enforcement unnecessarily, and instead provide greater incentive for crime?

jdkee 4y ago
They can get a warrant based on probable cause signed by a judge.
jimrandomh 4y ago
I think you have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what civil forfeiture is about. Civil forfeiture would mean the police take the car, don't return it to the rightful owner, and don't charge the thieves with a crime. Police don't need civil forfeiture to hold evidence in advance of pressing charges, or to recover stolen property and return it to its rightful owner. They only need civil forfeiture if they intend to keep the car for themselves.