17 ms·

Police cannot seize property indefinitely after an arrest, federal court rules

840 points by throwup238 2y ago

fergbrain 2y ago
I wonder if this ruling could also force the courts to start addressing unconstitutional civil forfeiture
- threatofrain 2y ago
  I wonder if judicial solutions can ever be adequate as police can simply say that an investigation is ongoing for years. And determining whether ongoing possession of seized property is legitimate involves disclosing investigation details.
  - Etheryte 2y ago
    I mean, the US is the only first world country that I know of where this is an issue, clearly there are ways to address this, no?
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
      - tocs3 2y ago
        For reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37684624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37684624
  - debacle 2y ago
    The problem is it eventually becomes government civil lawfare against citizens. Taxpayer foot the bill to screw other taxpayers.
    - frankharv 2y ago
      I saw a local piece about Power Company taking land from black owned Funeral Home for onshore windfarm transmission towers. I thought to myself why would one business be able to seize anothers property? How does a private company deserve Eminent Domain powers? Is a Funeral Home not a Public Good too? Why would we allow emminent domain for a monolopy company. https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/virginia-beach/virginia-beach-funeral-home-eminent-domain-fight-dominion-energy-wind-project/291-355b228f-9fe1-419c-8a3b-9d45f13aa307 https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/virginia...
      - debacle 2y ago
        Corruption is pretty much always the answer.
        frankharv 2y ago
        Indeed. Between FERC and State bodies you don't stand a chance to win. They were offering the Funeral Home $20K for 'air rights'. No poles. Seems cheap if you feel you will need to shutdown the business. https://landownerattorneys.com/can-private-companies-use-eminent-domain/ https://landownerattorneys.com/can-private-companies-use-emi...
        duskwuff 2y ago
        Claiming that the owners will "need to shutdown the business" because there are now power lines running above it seems a bit hyperbolic.
      - opo 2y ago
        The most famous example of this kind of use of eminent domain was the Kelo case which went to the Supreme Court. By 5-4 the court rules it was permissible to use eminent domain to get the land to build a campus for Pfizer. (The majority was Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.) As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.” After all of this, the land didn't get built into a corporate campus: >...For nearly 20 years since the ruling, the entire Fort Trumbull neighborhood remained a vacant lot after being bulldozed by the city; a neighborhood once teeming with families who resided there for generations was home only to weeds and feral cats. The economic development the city promised the U.S. Supreme Court would materialize—if only the government could get its hands on the land—never materialized, even after spending more than $80 million in taxpayer money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://ij.org/case/kelo/ https://ij.org/case/kelo/
  - tshaddox 2y ago
    How is that different than, say, indefinite detention? It’s obviously not implemented perfectly, but habeas corpus is uncontroversial at least in principle. I don’t see anything mechanistically unique about property seizure that would make this tricky to solve.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      > I don’t see anything mechanistically unique about property seizure that would make this tricky to solve. One of the mechanics at play is suing the property itself, which can’t defend itself for rather obvious reasons. That side steps any property rights with jurisdiction in rem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._%24124,700_in_U.S._Currency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._%24124,700_... IANAL but it’s as stupid as it sounds and it’s been controversial (i.e. United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins)
  - zdw 2y ago
    There was a proposal back in the discussion of extending copyright to be "forever minus one day" by the maximalist camp which included Sonny Bono, so there are hacks around "indefinitely".
  - undersuit 2y ago
    Hmm, does my money have the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed? (6th Amendment)
- GavinMcG 2y ago
  The Supreme Court has said it isn’t unconstitutional as a general matter, so a lower court’s ruling won’t force that to change. And because the practice is a holdover from English law and isn’t understood (as a historical matter) to be something the constitution was meant to alter, there isn’t much basis for thinking the Supreme Court would reverse its earlier decisions.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    How do they align that reasoning with the 4th? Particularly the conservative wing of the bench, as they seem most likely to be literalists (when it suits, at least).
    - tocs3 2y ago
      I don;t think they are trying very hard. They make the claim that the property is involved in a crime (not the owner) and the property does not have rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture
      - rolph 2y ago
        property is also not a person.
      - einpoklum 2y ago
        And that's why the police always seizes the property of banks and investment firms when there is suspicion of their involvement in financial crimes. ... Oh, wait, did I say "police seizes"? I meant of course "government replenishes guarantees and underwrites".
    - GavinMcG 2y ago
      The conservatives tend to be literalists when interpreting statutes and regulations. There are judicial philosophy reasons for that, but also, statutes and regulations can be changed in response to court rulings. That said, the conservatives tend to be literalists from the perspective of the legislature or regulator at the time the law was enacted, though all the justices (conservative and liberal) recognize that it’s a fiction to say Congress has a single point of view. When it comes to interpreting the constitution, conservatives likewise tend to be focused on the point of view at enactment. But it’s even more of a fiction to say that the states had a single point of view, and in any case, the text of the constitution often isn’t precise in the way contemporary statutes are. So the conservatives are guided more strongly by the historical evidence about what the sovereign states would have “understood” themselves to be giving up, in replacing the Articles of Confederation with a central federal government. Given that, they interpret the Fourth Amendment by reference to the historical evidence of what phenomena it was responding to. And as a historical matter, the aim of the amendment was to require warrants, not to narrow the scope of what could be searched or seized. So where there’s probable cause that a crime has been committed, a warrant may issue, and it can be directed at the property that “committed” the crime, since that was a known practice in English law at the time.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  I spent hundreds of hours hanging out in forfeiture court, it's wild. The court I was in eventually got a new judge and she took the two DAs aside and said to them "This bullshit you have going here, the 90% of cases you win because people don't even know how to fill out the paperwork. That ends today. That will not fly in my courtroom." I remember that same day a dad came in. The State had his new $60K SUV they were trying to sell. His son had swiped the keys, taken it, got caught drunk-driving. The DAs were like "well, tough shit, it's the law" and that judge said "Did this man know his son took the car? Does he have valid insurance? Give this man his damned car back. And I want you to pay all his towing and storage fees too." "His towing fee too?" "Yes" "We don't even know how to refund that, the city has that money." "Well, you have an hour to find out. See you in an hour." LOL If you are ever caught up in a civil forfeiture, make sure to stay on top of the paperwork. Most people lose their stuff by not doing the very simple paperwork. If you get to the first court hearing the State often gives up if it's not much value.
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    Was she promptly removed from the courtroom? We certainly can't have a judge that won't kowtow to system on the bench!!
montroser 2y ago
The standard for arrest, probable cause, is far too weak to be any basis for indefinitely seizing property. A precedent ruling on this by the Supreme Court would be welcome, but it's hard to say which way it would go, given the current makeup of the court.
- shwaj 2y ago
  Which half of the court would be likely to rule which way?
  - gostsamo 2y ago
    Does "tough on crime" answer your question?
    - debacle 2y ago
      No, because the tough on crime people are more libertarian as well.
    - mminer237 2y ago
      Who do you think is just "tough on crime"? Ideologically, Justice Thomas obviously is the most opposed to asset forfeiture. Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Gorsuch are all opposed to it too. I suppose that leaves Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson as the tough on crime crowd?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jahewson 2y ago
    There’s no “half”. While the current court has a conservative majority the rulings only fall sharply along those lines around 10% of the time https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-court-justice-math-00152188 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-co...
    - 2y ago
Brett_Riverboat 2y ago
Good luck enforcing it.
olliej 2y ago
While this is nice, it seems to only be addressing “I was arrested and the police seized my stuff”. E.g it does nothing to stop “the police stopped me, stole my stuff, and then sent me on my way”. E.g the case where there is not even the accusation of a crime has even less restrictions than when you are accused of a crime.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  Certainly my anecdata from spending time with a lot of detainees in Chicago is that it was impressively common for the police to find something incriminating on you, and also find some cash, and just take everything and send you on your way. The last couple of years has made the police a lot more honest due to prevalence of bodycams.
OutOfHere 2y ago
This is a well-intentioned but largely useless ruling because it fails to define the maximum duration for which property can be held. As such, it's up to the police as to what qualifies as indefinite. If the ruling had capped it to 14 or 30 days, that would be a useful ruling. A hard time cap is essential because one's life too has a cap. The amount of time for which one can go without earning a livelihood also has a cap. Imagine if prison sentences didn't have a time cap. This illustrates a common problem with our laws. They're very often vaguely defined, needlessly so, in a way that keeps attorneys and judges very rich, and the police abusive, to the detriment of the individual. In a sensible world, the laws would all be rewritten for clarity and consistency, starting with the Constitution.
- iwontberude 2y ago
  It's not useless because indefinite means never. At least this will require police departments to define the time and therefore make it less likely the stuff walks off, which will encourage keeping it for shorter periods of time.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    How about thirty years (but only if the person is still alive)? It's not indefinite, and it complies with the ruling.
    - tempest_ 2y ago
      How about 300 years? anyone with half a brain can see the problem with that ruling. Likely someone with lawyers could get that lowered to nothing and as a layman that feels like a feature not a bug.
      - OutOfHere 2y ago
        > Likely someone with lawyers could get that lowered to nothing I wouldn't be so sure. Cops have implicit prosecutorial attorneys too that have a lot more experience with such cases than do defense attorneys. There is no substitute for clarity in law. All else opens the door to exploitation and selective application, both of which are a mockery of justice.
iambateman 2y ago
The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable seizure. Shouldn’t this have been obviously unconstitutional since like 1800?
- LightHugger 2y ago
  It depends on the mangled interpretation and enforcement of the courts, and the courts are run by evil motherfuckers.
- Loughla 2y ago
  The problem is in defining unreasonable. If it just said it prohibited seizure, or prohibited asset seizure past 30 days or something to that effect, it would be much easier. But because it doesn't, we have to interpret the language. This is a difficult proposition; it's literally open for interpretation. Like most things in the constitution, it's messy, but still pretty good.
  - iambateman 2y ago
    Certainly! It’s just strange to me that we haven’t completely nailed this one down already in the courts. It’s not like AI or guns where the tech is totally different. “Don’t take my stuff forever” hasn’t changed much. :)
rlewkov 2y ago
Being vague is often necessary. E.g., what is cruel and usual punishment.
londons_explore 2y ago
We shouldn't need a court to make this the case... The police have a role of serving the publics interests. Taking someone's phone and keeping it for a year is clearly substantially detrimental to that specific member of the public, and rather unlikely to be of commensurate benefit to the rest of the public. Therefore, such activity isn't what we pay them for or expect them to do - at a minimum we should be firing any cops who do this deliberately, even if it weren't illegal.
mempko 2y ago
Interesting fact, police seizure (police stealing from people who are arrested, even if they are never prosecuted) is more than criminal theft. In other words, police steal more from people than criminals.
- chaboud 2y ago
  I thought this was an obviously ridiculous statement, and then I looked it up. In many of the last 25 years, civil asset forfeiture outpaces criminal burglary in total losses. Wow. I thought civil asset forfeiture was a messed up problem before…
  - ImHereToVote 2y ago
    I would say that you don't live in a real country if the government can just arbitrarily take your stuff from you legally. It makes it doubly absurd that the US wants to export this "democracy".
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
Step 1: seize property Step 2: hold onto it for an indefinite period of time Step 3: steal the property Step 4: when the owner comes for their stuff, claim the property went missing Step 5: wait for a lawsuit that usually doesn't come because the property isn't worth enough and nobody wants to get in a suit with cops for what's usually small claims None of this is going to change unless you prevent cops from handling seized property.
- bawolff 2y ago
  > Step 5: wait for a lawsuit that usually doesn't come because the property isn't worth enough and nobody wants to get in a suit with cops for what's usually small claims Which is why class-action lawsuits are a thing.
from-nibly 2y ago
Any time I hear the word reasonable in a law, I throw up my hands. That word is not concrete. It's the "give up on life pants" of legalese. Respect yourself and others, if you can't define proper limits then you don't know what you want or how to get it. In which case you should leave everyone else in peace.
- tgv 2y ago
  Idk where you come from, but defining is hard. It's really hard to define a table or a chair. You can come up with some definition, but probably someone has a table or a chair that doesn't fit it. Defining what's reasonable is much harder, but it can be parceled out through individual cases, and slowly build jurisprudence.
  - dogtierstatus 2y ago
    But isn't that the literal job of legislators?
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    Defining is not hard. You can say "a table is a flat board with four support structures roughly 1 m (+/- 5 cm) in height, built for the purpose of keeping things off the ground". Anything that fits that description is a table, and anything that doesn't, isn't. Supposed tables with three legs, or Japanese tables, aren't tables by this definition; they are something else. Perhaps this is a problem, or perhaps it isn't. I would argue that an imperfect definition that doesn't completely encompass a situation is better than a loose guideline, because the definition is unambiguous, while the guideline will always leave room for bickering about interpretation.
    - brewdad 2y ago
      Do we really want to spend our time in the legal system litigating what a table is? What if I use a chair as a place to set my dinner plate while eating on the sofa? A reasonableness standard is the only practical way to start defining a law. The specifics and edge cases get worked out over time. Otherwise, I can add a fifth center support to my table and now you have to rewrite every law pertaining to tables. Rinse. Repeat.
xrd 2y ago
It would be egregious to keep property for years even if the arrest were made with charges. But, in the DC case, "the protesters did not face any charges" and their phones were kept for 14 months. That's doubly insane.
commercialnix 2y ago
Most people who live in cities are very domesticated. In third world countries and also small towns in USA, where the police blatantly rob people under the color of law, people form their own small gangs and literally hunt the other gang (irrespective of costume/uniform) down and kill them. Highway robbery is highway robbery, uniformed or not.
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  The US just found a way to formalize gangs and subsidize their thievery. They even give the gangs uniforms. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-17/dozens-of-lasd-deputies-ordered-to-show-suspected-gang-tattoos-reveal-others-who-have-them https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-17/dozens-o...
freen 2y ago
Can’t sell it, have to hold it, storage isn’t free, so effectively if it isn’t evidence, they can’t keep it. I wonder if you are owed interest on cash held for an extended period of time.
ForOldHack 2y ago
Non-news, because it will have little effect. Tell the tow companies that? And they will laugh, and tell you to get off their lawn. Any and all legal jurisdictions in the U.S. have a multitude of tow companies profiting from theft. (Seizure) Even San Francisco has TWO companies investigated by the FBI... No arrests were made.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
How about charging interest and lost market gains on any property wrongly seized, and no qualified immunity for wrongful seizure either. Liability for both the department and individual as a private citizen.
Abismith 2y ago
[flagged]
jccalhoun 2y ago
The current Supreme Court would overturn this decision in record time.
pstuart 2y ago
The fact that the police can materially gain from this is a toxic incentive. They should not have any of these ill-gotten gains.
dools 2y ago
But will they help Afro Man repair his door?
phkahler 2y ago
What about when there isn't an arrest?
- maxwell 2y ago
  Then it sounds unreasonable.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shynome 2y ago
Interest, 15 days interest-free period, if the item is damaged/expired, the principal and interest will be calculated based on the invoice amount
atoav 2y ago
This is not a problem at all in the EU and I can't help but wonder if the source of the problem isn't the word of the law but the fact in the US police appears to have an incentive to seize assets that is not connected to any criminal proceeding. In the EU if something is seized that isn't relate to a case it just produces costs for the police district as it needs to be stored, processed etc. In the US the value goes directly into the koffers of the people doing the seizing. If you give your kid a cookie everything it steals, you should not be surprised it ends up being a thief. So if you want that kind of thuggish behavior to stop, you need to remove the incentive to do so. If anything there should be a slight disincentive, so only useful assets are seized and your police avoids unnecessary cost or does not abuse their power to seize things to punish innocent people. My general advice for looking at any issue is to first analyze the incentive structure and the environment actors operate in.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Friedduck 2y ago
The fact that we even have to have this conversation tells you how far afield from our stated values we have drifted. Some municipalities are just corrupt. If your cops are going to conferences to learn how they can seize property, they’re criminals. We should start treating them that way.
wordsarelies 2y ago
Duh, they have to destroy it to be indemnified. Fifth amendment compensation doesn't happen cause the courts are corrupt. No blame no problem.
torcete 2y ago
There are a lot of people saying that bitcoin is just another bubble and it will burst one day like the tulipmania bubble. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. However, there is one thing about bitcoin that is absolutely true. It is un-seizable.
- barbazoo 2y ago
  > there is one thing about bitcoin that is absolutely true. It is un-seizable. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-historic-336-billion-cryptocurrency-seizure-and-conviction https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-h... "U.S. Attorney Announces Historic $3.36 Billion Cryptocurrency Seizure And Conviction In Connection With Silk Road Dark Web Fraud"
  - torcete 2y ago
    I can imagine that they had access to the wallet passwords, otherwise it's impossible. At least with bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, maybe.
einpoklum 2y ago
Wow, now I can surely be certain that the US is a liberal democracy where residents are safe from arbitrary abuse by government.
P_I_Staker 2y ago
I'm not sure I'm capable of understanding such fuss. The stuff is into the united states of america. Her property. Would one hide from the government so much they worry about having siesures? One wonders the secrets those monsters keep safely hidden in there layers.
bankcust08385 2y ago
Civil asset forfeiture may be on its way out, but there's another absurdity being used to steal property and money without proving criminal guilt or civil liability. Suits are now being filed against the property itself as a defendant rather than the owner.

840 points by throwup238 2y ago

fergbrain 2y ago

I wonder if this ruling could also force the courts to start addressing unconstitutional civil forfeiture

threatofrain 2y ago
I wonder if judicial solutions can ever be adequate as police can simply say that an investigation is ongoing for years. And determining whether ongoing possession of seized property is legitimate involves disclosing investigation details.
- Etheryte 2y ago
  I mean, the US is the only first world country that I know of where this is an issue, clearly there are ways to address this, no?
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
    - tocs3 2y ago
      For reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37684624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37684624
- debacle 2y ago
  The problem is it eventually becomes government civil lawfare against citizens. Taxpayer foot the bill to screw other taxpayers.
  - frankharv 2y ago
    I saw a local piece about Power Company taking land from black owned Funeral Home for onshore windfarm transmission towers. I thought to myself why would one business be able to seize anothers property? How does a private company deserve Eminent Domain powers? Is a Funeral Home not a Public Good too? Why would we allow emminent domain for a monolopy company. https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/virginia-beach/virginia-beach-funeral-home-eminent-domain-fight-dominion-energy-wind-project/291-355b228f-9fe1-419c-8a3b-9d45f13aa307 https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/virginia...
    - debacle 2y ago
      Corruption is pretty much always the answer.
      - frankharv 2y ago
        Indeed. Between FERC and State bodies you don't stand a chance to win. They were offering the Funeral Home $20K for 'air rights'. No poles. Seems cheap if you feel you will need to shutdown the business. https://landownerattorneys.com/can-private-companies-use-eminent-domain/ https://landownerattorneys.com/can-private-companies-use-emi...
        duskwuff 2y ago
        Claiming that the owners will "need to shutdown the business" because there are now power lines running above it seems a bit hyperbolic.
    - opo 2y ago
      The most famous example of this kind of use of eminent domain was the Kelo case which went to the Supreme Court. By 5-4 the court rules it was permissible to use eminent domain to get the land to build a campus for Pfizer. (The majority was Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.) As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.” After all of this, the land didn't get built into a corporate campus: >...For nearly 20 years since the ruling, the entire Fort Trumbull neighborhood remained a vacant lot after being bulldozed by the city; a neighborhood once teeming with families who resided there for generations was home only to weeds and feral cats. The economic development the city promised the U.S. Supreme Court would materialize—if only the government could get its hands on the land—never materialized, even after spending more than $80 million in taxpayer money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://ij.org/case/kelo/ https://ij.org/case/kelo/
- tshaddox 2y ago
  How is that different than, say, indefinite detention? It’s obviously not implemented perfectly, but habeas corpus is uncontroversial at least in principle. I don’t see anything mechanistically unique about property seizure that would make this tricky to solve.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    > I don’t see anything mechanistically unique about property seizure that would make this tricky to solve. One of the mechanics at play is suing the property itself, which can’t defend itself for rather obvious reasons. That side steps any property rights with jurisdiction in rem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._%24124,700_in_U.S._Currency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._%24124,700_... IANAL but it’s as stupid as it sounds and it’s been controversial (i.e. United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins)
- zdw 2y ago
  There was a proposal back in the discussion of extending copyright to be "forever minus one day" by the maximalist camp which included Sonny Bono, so there are hacks around "indefinitely".
- undersuit 2y ago
  Hmm, does my money have the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed? (6th Amendment)
GavinMcG 2y ago
The Supreme Court has said it isn’t unconstitutional as a general matter, so a lower court’s ruling won’t force that to change. And because the practice is a holdover from English law and isn’t understood (as a historical matter) to be something the constitution was meant to alter, there isn’t much basis for thinking the Supreme Court would reverse its earlier decisions.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  How do they align that reasoning with the 4th? Particularly the conservative wing of the bench, as they seem most likely to be literalists (when it suits, at least).
  - tocs3 2y ago
    I don;t think they are trying very hard. They make the claim that the property is involved in a crime (not the owner) and the property does not have rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture
    - rolph 2y ago
      property is also not a person.
    - einpoklum 2y ago
      And that's why the police always seizes the property of banks and investment firms when there is suspicion of their involvement in financial crimes. ... Oh, wait, did I say "police seizes"? I meant of course "government replenishes guarantees and underwrites".
  - GavinMcG 2y ago
    The conservatives tend to be literalists when interpreting statutes and regulations. There are judicial philosophy reasons for that, but also, statutes and regulations can be changed in response to court rulings. That said, the conservatives tend to be literalists from the perspective of the legislature or regulator at the time the law was enacted, though all the justices (conservative and liberal) recognize that it’s a fiction to say Congress has a single point of view. When it comes to interpreting the constitution, conservatives likewise tend to be focused on the point of view at enactment. But it’s even more of a fiction to say that the states had a single point of view, and in any case, the text of the constitution often isn’t precise in the way contemporary statutes are. So the conservatives are guided more strongly by the historical evidence about what the sovereign states would have “understood” themselves to be giving up, in replacing the Articles of Confederation with a central federal government. Given that, they interpret the Fourth Amendment by reference to the historical evidence of what phenomena it was responding to. And as a historical matter, the aim of the amendment was to require warrants, not to narrow the scope of what could be searched or seized. So where there’s probable cause that a crime has been committed, a warrant may issue, and it can be directed at the property that “committed” the crime, since that was a known practice in English law at the time.
qingcharles 2y ago
I spent hundreds of hours hanging out in forfeiture court, it's wild. The court I was in eventually got a new judge and she took the two DAs aside and said to them "This bullshit you have going here, the 90% of cases you win because people don't even know how to fill out the paperwork. That ends today. That will not fly in my courtroom." I remember that same day a dad came in. The State had his new $60K SUV they were trying to sell. His son had swiped the keys, taken it, got caught drunk-driving. The DAs were like "well, tough shit, it's the law" and that judge said "Did this man know his son took the car? Does he have valid insurance? Give this man his damned car back. And I want you to pay all his towing and storage fees too." "His towing fee too?" "Yes" "We don't even know how to refund that, the city has that money." "Well, you have an hour to find out. See you in an hour." LOL If you are ever caught up in a civil forfeiture, make sure to stay on top of the paperwork. Most people lose their stuff by not doing the very simple paperwork. If you get to the first court hearing the State often gives up if it's not much value.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  Was she promptly removed from the courtroom? We certainly can't have a judge that won't kowtow to system on the bench!!

montroser 2y ago

The standard for arrest, probable cause, is far too weak to be any basis for indefinitely seizing property. A precedent ruling on this by the Supreme Court would be welcome, but it's hard to say which way it would go, given the current makeup of the court.

shwaj 2y ago
Which half of the court would be likely to rule which way?
- gostsamo 2y ago
  Does "tough on crime" answer your question?
  - debacle 2y ago
    No, because the tough on crime people are more libertarian as well.
  - mminer237 2y ago
    Who do you think is just "tough on crime"? Ideologically, Justice Thomas obviously is the most opposed to asset forfeiture. Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Gorsuch are all opposed to it too. I suppose that leaves Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson as the tough on crime crowd?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jahewson 2y ago
  There’s no “half”. While the current court has a conservative majority the rulings only fall sharply along those lines around 10% of the time https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-court-justice-math-00152188 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-co...
  - 2y ago

Brett_Riverboat 2y ago

Good luck enforcing it.

olliej 2y ago

While this is nice, it seems to only be addressing “I was arrested and the police seized my stuff”. E.g it does nothing to stop “the police stopped me, stole my stuff, and then sent me on my way”. E.g the case where there is not even the accusation of a crime has even less restrictions than when you are accused of a crime.

qingcharles 2y ago
Certainly my anecdata from spending time with a lot of detainees in Chicago is that it was impressively common for the police to find something incriminating on you, and also find some cash, and just take everything and send you on your way. The last couple of years has made the police a lot more honest due to prevalence of bodycams.

OutOfHere 2y ago

This is a well-intentioned but largely useless ruling because it fails to define the maximum duration for which property can be held. As such, it's up to the police as to what qualifies as indefinite. If the ruling had capped it to 14 or 30 days, that would be a useful ruling. A hard time cap is essential because one's life too has a cap. The amount of time for which one can go without earning a livelihood also has a cap. Imagine if prison sentences didn't have a time cap. This illustrates a common problem with our laws. They're very often vaguely defined, needlessly so, in a way that keeps attorneys and judges very rich, and the police abusive, to the detriment of the individual. In a sensible world, the laws would all be rewritten for clarity and consistency, starting with the Constitution.

iwontberude 2y ago
It's not useless because indefinite means never. At least this will require police departments to define the time and therefore make it less likely the stuff walks off, which will encourage keeping it for shorter periods of time.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  How about thirty years (but only if the person is still alive)? It's not indefinite, and it complies with the ruling.
  - tempest_ 2y ago
    How about 300 years? anyone with half a brain can see the problem with that ruling. Likely someone with lawyers could get that lowered to nothing and as a layman that feels like a feature not a bug.
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      > Likely someone with lawyers could get that lowered to nothing I wouldn't be so sure. Cops have implicit prosecutorial attorneys too that have a lot more experience with such cases than do defense attorneys. There is no substitute for clarity in law. All else opens the door to exploitation and selective application, both of which are a mockery of justice.

iambateman 2y ago

The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable seizure. Shouldn’t this have been obviously unconstitutional since like 1800?

LightHugger 2y ago
It depends on the mangled interpretation and enforcement of the courts, and the courts are run by evil motherfuckers.
Loughla 2y ago
The problem is in defining unreasonable. If it just said it prohibited seizure, or prohibited asset seizure past 30 days or something to that effect, it would be much easier. But because it doesn't, we have to interpret the language. This is a difficult proposition; it's literally open for interpretation. Like most things in the constitution, it's messy, but still pretty good.
- iambateman 2y ago
  Certainly! It’s just strange to me that we haven’t completely nailed this one down already in the courts. It’s not like AI or guns where the tech is totally different. “Don’t take my stuff forever” hasn’t changed much. :)

rlewkov 2y ago

Being vague is often necessary. E.g., what is cruel and usual punishment.

londons_explore 2y ago

We shouldn't need a court to make this the case... The police have a role of serving the publics interests. Taking someone's phone and keeping it for a year is clearly substantially detrimental to that specific member of the public, and rather unlikely to be of commensurate benefit to the rest of the public. Therefore, such activity isn't what we pay them for or expect them to do - at a minimum we should be firing any cops who do this deliberately, even if it weren't illegal.

mempko 2y ago

Interesting fact, police seizure (police stealing from people who are arrested, even if they are never prosecuted) is more than criminal theft. In other words, police steal more from people than criminals.

chaboud 2y ago
I thought this was an obviously ridiculous statement, and then I looked it up. In many of the last 25 years, civil asset forfeiture outpaces criminal burglary in total losses. Wow. I thought civil asset forfeiture was a messed up problem before…
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  I would say that you don't live in a real country if the government can just arbitrarily take your stuff from you legally. It makes it doubly absurd that the US wants to export this "democracy".

MisterBastahrd 2y ago

Step 1: seize property Step 2: hold onto it for an indefinite period of time Step 3: steal the property Step 4: when the owner comes for their stuff, claim the property went missing Step 5: wait for a lawsuit that usually doesn't come because the property isn't worth enough and nobody wants to get in a suit with cops for what's usually small claims None of this is going to change unless you prevent cops from handling seized property.

bawolff 2y ago
> Step 5: wait for a lawsuit that usually doesn't come because the property isn't worth enough and nobody wants to get in a suit with cops for what's usually small claims Which is why class-action lawsuits are a thing.

from-nibly 2y ago

Any time I hear the word reasonable in a law, I throw up my hands. That word is not concrete. It's the "give up on life pants" of legalese. Respect yourself and others, if you can't define proper limits then you don't know what you want or how to get it. In which case you should leave everyone else in peace.

tgv 2y ago
Idk where you come from, but defining is hard. It's really hard to define a table or a chair. You can come up with some definition, but probably someone has a table or a chair that doesn't fit it. Defining what's reasonable is much harder, but it can be parceled out through individual cases, and slowly build jurisprudence.
- dogtierstatus 2y ago
  But isn't that the literal job of legislators?
- fluoridation 2y ago
  Defining is not hard. You can say "a table is a flat board with four support structures roughly 1 m (+/- 5 cm) in height, built for the purpose of keeping things off the ground". Anything that fits that description is a table, and anything that doesn't, isn't. Supposed tables with three legs, or Japanese tables, aren't tables by this definition; they are something else. Perhaps this is a problem, or perhaps it isn't. I would argue that an imperfect definition that doesn't completely encompass a situation is better than a loose guideline, because the definition is unambiguous, while the guideline will always leave room for bickering about interpretation.
  - brewdad 2y ago
    Do we really want to spend our time in the legal system litigating what a table is? What if I use a chair as a place to set my dinner plate while eating on the sofa? A reasonableness standard is the only practical way to start defining a law. The specifics and edge cases get worked out over time. Otherwise, I can add a fifth center support to my table and now you have to rewrite every law pertaining to tables. Rinse. Repeat.

xrd 2y ago

It would be egregious to keep property for years even if the arrest were made with charges. But, in the DC case, "the protesters did not face any charges" and their phones were kept for 14 months. That's doubly insane.

commercialnix 2y ago

Most people who live in cities are very domesticated. In third world countries and also small towns in USA, where the police blatantly rob people under the color of law, people form their own small gangs and literally hunt the other gang (irrespective of costume/uniform) down and kill them. Highway robbery is highway robbery, uniformed or not.

ImHereToVote 2y ago
The US just found a way to formalize gangs and subsidize their thievery. They even give the gangs uniforms. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-17/dozens-of-lasd-deputies-ordered-to-show-suspected-gang-tattoos-reveal-others-who-have-them https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-17/dozens-o...

freen 2y ago

Can’t sell it, have to hold it, storage isn’t free, so effectively if it isn’t evidence, they can’t keep it. I wonder if you are owed interest on cash held for an extended period of time.

ForOldHack 2y ago

Non-news, because it will have little effect. Tell the tow companies that? And they will laugh, and tell you to get off their lawn. Any and all legal jurisdictions in the U.S. have a multitude of tow companies profiting from theft. (Seizure) Even San Francisco has TWO companies investigated by the FBI... No arrests were made.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

How about charging interest and lost market gains on any property wrongly seized, and no qualified immunity for wrongful seizure either. Liability for both the department and individual as a private citizen.

Abismith 2y ago

[flagged]

jccalhoun 2y ago

The current Supreme Court would overturn this decision in record time.

pstuart 2y ago

The fact that the police can materially gain from this is a toxic incentive. They should not have any of these ill-gotten gains.

dools 2y ago

But will they help Afro Man repair his door?

phkahler 2y ago

What about when there isn't an arrest?

maxwell 2y ago
Then it sounds unreasonable.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

shynome 2y ago

Interest, 15 days interest-free period, if the item is damaged/expired, the principal and interest will be calculated based on the invoice amount

atoav 2y ago

This is not a problem at all in the EU and I can't help but wonder if the source of the problem isn't the word of the law but the fact in the US police appears to have an incentive to seize assets that is not connected to any criminal proceeding. In the EU if something is seized that isn't relate to a case it just produces costs for the police district as it needs to be stored, processed etc. In the US the value goes directly into the koffers of the people doing the seizing. If you give your kid a cookie everything it steals, you should not be surprised it ends up being a thief. So if you want that kind of thuggish behavior to stop, you need to remove the incentive to do so. If anything there should be a slight disincentive, so only useful assets are seized and your police avoids unnecessary cost or does not abuse their power to seize things to punish innocent people. My general advice for looking at any issue is to first analyze the incentive structure and the environment actors operate in.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Friedduck 2y ago

The fact that we even have to have this conversation tells you how far afield from our stated values we have drifted. Some municipalities are just corrupt. If your cops are going to conferences to learn how they can seize property, they’re criminals. We should start treating them that way.

wordsarelies 2y ago

Duh, they have to destroy it to be indemnified. Fifth amendment compensation doesn't happen cause the courts are corrupt. No blame no problem.

torcete 2y ago

There are a lot of people saying that bitcoin is just another bubble and it will burst one day like the tulipmania bubble. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. However, there is one thing about bitcoin that is absolutely true. It is un-seizable.

barbazoo 2y ago
> there is one thing about bitcoin that is absolutely true. It is un-seizable. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-historic-336-billion-cryptocurrency-seizure-and-conviction https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-h... "U.S. Attorney Announces Historic $3.36 Billion Cryptocurrency Seizure And Conviction In Connection With Silk Road Dark Web Fraud"
- torcete 2y ago
  I can imagine that they had access to the wallet passwords, otherwise it's impossible. At least with bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, maybe.

einpoklum 2y ago

Wow, now I can surely be certain that the US is a liberal democracy where residents are safe from arbitrary abuse by government.

P_I_Staker 2y ago

I'm not sure I'm capable of understanding such fuss. The stuff is into the united states of america. Her property. Would one hide from the government so much they worry about having siesures? One wonders the secrets those monsters keep safely hidden in there layers.

bankcust08385 2y ago

Civil asset forfeiture may be on its way out, but there's another absurdity being used to steal property and money without proving criminal guilt or civil liability. Suits are now being filed against the property itself as a defendant rather than the owner.