3 ms·

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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- iwontberude 2y ago
  That means they have to be able to hold onto the property for 300 years and be able to verifiably return it to the estate beneficiaries. That costs a lot of money, better to just hold onto things for a short period of time while they are relevant and not steal them or throw them away.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > anyone with half a brain can see the problem with that ruling. If the definition of the word “reasonable” was left in the other half then sure. It’s the job that of the court to define what is “reasonable” on a case by case basis and establish a precedent. They can’t start coming up with laws themselves that clearly establish universal and specific limits.
alpinisme 2y ago
It would not comply the with ruling unless they could provide “reasonable” grounds for holding it that long, and any precisely specified length of time would probably run afoul of the ruling, since that would by definition be specifying the length of time the police could hold it without reason (they could well give it back because they have no continued use for it, but they choose to withhold it arbitrarily because they can, since the deadline for return hasn’t arrived)

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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
iwontberude 2y ago
That means they have to be able to hold onto the property for 300 years and be able to verifiably return it to the estate beneficiaries. That costs a lot of money, better to just hold onto things for a short period of time while they are relevant and not steal them or throw them away.
ffgjgf1 2y ago
> anyone with half a brain can see the problem with that ruling. If the definition of the word “reasonable” was left in the other half then sure. It’s the job that of the court to define what is “reasonable” on a case by case basis and establish a precedent. They can’t start coming up with laws themselves that clearly establish universal and specific limits.

alpinisme 2y ago

It would not comply the with ruling unless they could provide “reasonable” grounds for holding it that long, and any precisely specified length of time would probably run afoul of the ruling, since that would by definition be specifying the length of time the police could hold it without reason (they could well give it back because they have no continued use for it, but they choose to withhold it arbitrarily because they can, since the deadline for return hasn’t arrived)