6 ms·

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!!

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!!