3 ms·

Why has this never been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Have they ever ruled on civil forfeiture? That sounds like the opposite of constitutional,

Why has this never been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Have they ever ruled on civil forfeiture? That sounds like the opposite of constitutional, it's assuming that someone is committing a crime without any evidence.

aidenn0 2y ago
IANAL, but they have ruled many times on Civil Forfeiture The TL;DR: 1. If property is confiscated as part of punishment for a crime (e.g. places that make you forfeit your car if you get a DUI), then it is subject to the 8th amendment. 2. If the property itself is suspected of being a criminal tool (e.g. money earned illegally), then it is not. 3. Since in #2, it is a civil case against property (rather than a criminal case against a person), the property has no right to an attorney, and the burden of proof is merely "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. neither side is privileged for evidence). There are also other more lenient due-process rules compared to a criminal case. So, for example, in a criminal case if the government's entire case is "this looks suspicious" then the defense can be "you haven't proved anything" but in a civil case, the defense would have to offer enough evidence to outweigh the suspicion. And since there is no right to representation, the defendant has to find and pay for their own lawyer.
- kergonath 2y ago
  That is ridiculous. The idea that you can go after someone’s possessions to avoid due process is bonkers. The whole idea of civil forfeiture is archaic and should be inconceivable in a country presumably ruled by law, with its completely arbitrary character and unaccountable enforcers.
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    There is due process. It's just not the same standard as a criminal case. Usually it starts with the prosecutor mailing out a letter, which if you miss it means you're screwed.
jandrese 2y ago
The Supreme Court usually sides with the cops. The current majority is pretty deferential to the police in matters like this. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf

aidenn0 2y ago

IANAL, but they have ruled many times on Civil Forfeiture The TL;DR: 1. If property is confiscated as part of punishment for a crime (e.g. places that make you forfeit your car if you get a DUI), then it is subject to the 8th amendment. 2. If the property itself is suspected of being a criminal tool (e.g. money earned illegally), then it is not. 3. Since in #2, it is a civil case against property (rather than a criminal case against a person), the property has no right to an attorney, and the burden of proof is merely "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. neither side is privileged for evidence). There are also other more lenient due-process rules compared to a criminal case. So, for example, in a criminal case if the government's entire case is "this looks suspicious" then the defense can be "you haven't proved anything" but in a civil case, the defense would have to offer enough evidence to outweigh the suspicion. And since there is no right to representation, the defendant has to find and pay for their own lawyer.

kergonath 2y ago
That is ridiculous. The idea that you can go after someone’s possessions to avoid due process is bonkers. The whole idea of civil forfeiture is archaic and should be inconceivable in a country presumably ruled by law, with its completely arbitrary character and unaccountable enforcers.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  There is due process. It's just not the same standard as a criminal case. Usually it starts with the prosecutor mailing out a letter, which if you miss it means you're screwed.

jandrese 2y ago

The Supreme Court usually sides with the cops. The current majority is pretty deferential to the police in matters like this. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_k5fm.pdf