Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property (8-0 w/ Thomas concurring)
NY Times ^ | 09-20-2019 | Adam Liptak

Posted on 02/20/2019 10:16:32 AM PST by NRx

WASHINGTON — Siding with a small time drug offender in Indiana whose $42,000 Land Rover was seized by law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Constitution places limits on civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

Civil forfeiture is a popular way to raise revenue, and its use has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment, which bars “excessive fines,” limits the ability of the federal government to seize property. On Wednesday, the court ruled that the clause also applies to the states.

Previously, the Supreme Court had never squarely addressed that question. It had addressed the status of the Excessive Fines Clause, but only in the context of the federal government. The court had, however, previously ruled that most protections under the Bill of Rights apply to the states — or were incorporated against them, in the legal jargon — under the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight justices, said the question was an easy one. “The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming,” she wrote.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: assetforfeiture; braking; civilforfeiture; forfeiture; lawsuit; ruling; scotus; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-135 next last
To: i_robot73
Sure... It's right here in black & white.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of The United States.

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.

101 posted on 02/20/2019 2:29:48 PM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Wasn’t it 9-0??


102 posted on 02/20/2019 2:34:26 PM PST by Don Corleone (Nothing makes the delusional more furious than truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
“If police don’t get to keep the money from forfeiture, “what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?” Bruder said.

Donut-munching POS.

103 posted on 02/20/2019 2:36:05 PM PST by NobleFree ("law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: gibsonguy

I’m not certain why you are bringing up eminent domain in relation to this case. Or is this sarcasm/joke that I am too feeble to recognize?


104 posted on 02/20/2019 2:43:54 PM PST by Dave W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NRx; ransomnote

Trump’s December 2017 Executive Order may be in site here too. It gave him the ability to seize assets. This may block that.


105 posted on 02/20/2019 2:44:13 PM PST by Blogger (Vote Trump 2020 & get some of what you want. Don't & be guaranteed to get what you don't want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Finally. Good news.

A little to late in my personal case though...


106 posted on 02/20/2019 2:55:34 PM PST by vannrox (The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

Technically it was 8-0 with the eight justices all agreeing on the basic rational of the decision. Thomas concurred with the judgement of the court but arrived there by entirely different reasoning. So the judgement was unanimous, but the ruling was 8-0 (1 concurring). It is the majority opinion that will hold the force of Supreme Court precedent.


107 posted on 02/20/2019 2:56:53 PM PST by NRx (A man of honor passes his father's civilization to his son without surrendering it to strangers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Giles Corey of the Salem Farms
By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

https://archive.org/details/gilescoreyofsale00long/page/n2


108 posted on 02/20/2019 3:00:51 PM PST by Alas Babylon! (The media is after us. Trump's just in the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: NRx
Civil forfeiture is a popular way to raise revenue...
No it ain't...
109 posted on 02/20/2019 3:46:13 PM PST by unread (Joe McCarthy was right.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said “The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming.”
How the hell would she know... I don't think she's ever read the constitution...
110 posted on 02/20/2019 3:50:10 PM PST by unread (Joe McCarthy was right.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacquej; cuban leaf

The outcome was agreed to 9-0, but the official Opinion of the Court was 8-0. Justice Thomas agreed with the outcome but for different reasons.


111 posted on 02/20/2019 5:07:29 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

Has nothing to do with or have any impact on El Chapo


112 posted on 02/20/2019 6:01:24 PM PST by 100American (Knowledge is knowing how, Wisdom is knowing when)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 100American

I gave hypothetical aimed at peoples opinions about how much the government can take. What’s your opinion


113 posted on 02/20/2019 6:13:56 PM PST by morphing libertarian (Use Comey's Report; Indict Hillary now; build Kate's wall. --- Proud Smelly Walmart Deplorable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

yes it nullifies that and all such specious reasoning around the eighth amendment.


114 posted on 02/20/2019 8:36:03 PM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: All

Beyond obvious that USA ever allow this un-constitutional _law_. Law which violates USConstitution is null and void.


115 posted on 02/20/2019 8:52:38 PM PST by veracious (UN=OIC=Islam ; Dems may change USAgov completely, just amend USConstitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pete from Shawnee Mission; NRx; All

My 80+ year old father was renting apartments in his 4 unit building. At one point I know one apartment was being used for drug dealing. I was always afraid that my father would loose his building in some kind of seizure situation. Now I worry that the eminent domain decision will enable the government to seize a four story row house of mine along with several others that are situated between several apartment buildings now that ED for economic purposes has been approved by the Supremes.


116 posted on 02/20/2019 10:05:47 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Without proof, which should be easy to produce, I call BS on the whole “Ruthie is Alive” theater.


117 posted on 02/21/2019 2:40:56 AM PST by Cololeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Not much difference between local governments and ‘This Thing Of Ours’.

Except this ‘Thing’ will keep a neighborhood safe.


118 posted on 02/21/2019 5:24:32 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cololeo

I’m not sure.

I do not trust anything from the NYT or NPR. Both have Zero credibility.

At this point, I do not believe her health is as good as either of them say. But suspect she is still breathing and she was reported seen once in public.

However, remember the Hillary double thing during the election? With the ComDems anything is possible. The truth is simply not in them.

I’m not jumping to conclusions.


119 posted on 02/21/2019 6:00:46 AM PST by Texas Fossil ((Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

It is my understanding that RBG appeared in person on the bench. She was in fact physically present.

The fact she was there asks us to infer that her physical condition is not as bad as the speculation suggests.

My view is that she put the world on notice that she ain’t going away soon.

The RBG water remains murky


120 posted on 02/21/2019 6:08:13 AM PST by bert ( (KE. N.P. N.C. +12) Honduras must be invaded to protect America from invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-135 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson