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 ...
“Some dink from the town came out in late March ... “
Just think, that same dink will OK that land for use when come frigging DC thief gets their hands on it for pennies on the dollar. Sickening, huh?
Civil forfeiture is a nice-sounding name for seizure of private property. Government has the power to do it, but not the right.
Kudos to SCOTUS for recognizing there’s a problem. But confiscating criminals’ assets is merely the tip of the iceberg of federal grabbiness.
I think Jefferson was prophetic in his comments here.
What is aggravating is this appeal came after the state SC had no problem. The decision rested on whether the 8th amendment was applicable to state courts. The ruling did NOT outlaw forfeitures rather it said the eighth is binding on the state and forfeitures must be reasonable. Frankly to me seizures of “instrumentalities” of a crime as distinguished from evidence has bothered me. Some coppers towing off a Ferrari because someone drove it to sell a dime bag of pot to some UA is ridicules. More so when some judge Denies a return. BTW coppers generally do not seize bank cars because such a seizure albeit the car being an instrumentality of the crime does not “ punish” the culprit further demonstrating that such seizures of instrumentalities is a ruse.
8-0. Who abstained?
= = =
Maybe it was 9-0, with one condom?
Income tax has its very own amendment that can supersede the 4th.
Heh. You know, as cynical as
I get, it’s never enough.
Hypothetical. Chapo is a truck driver making 1,000 a month in Shithole, New Mexico He starts selling drugs and in ten years has a mansion in Santa Fe, a yacht in the gulf of California, and a beach house in Hawaii. He has there mercedes and and airplane and 3 million in jewelry. 50 million in art. 5 million in firearms for himself and his “entourage.” And 2 millions cash in the bank and 6 million stashed in the floorboard.
Do you believe any of these assets should be forfeited after a guilty plea. Add, drug selling is his only source of income.
I forgot the helicopter,
Majority opinion was 8-0. Not the same thing as the 9-0 vote. Thomas agreed with the result, but did not agree with RBG’s reasoning. Gorsuch agreed with RBG but added more of his own opinion too.
Good grief, if standing water at any time means a property is wetland and cannot be sold then most of the area around me would be off the market, including much of my own eight acres. There are half million dollar or even more expensive homes around here that had a driveway running through foot deep water for much of September through January of 2018. Along the Waccamaw river many, many expensive houses had water flowing through them for weeks.
But what's "excessive" in their eyes? Personally, I don't think anything, not one red cent, should be taken minus a conviction.
(Probably should've read the entire decision, but I'm not a lawyer and legalese puts me to sleep faster than a baseball bat to the head.)
Moreover the right to decide cases under they constitution is part of the Article III powers of the Supreme Court. See also relevant Federalist Papers on the subject.
The idiots who think this is over-reach are idiots. We can all agree that Roe v Wade was bad law without arguing that the constitution doesn’t say what it expressly says.
This is post conviction asset forfeiture that the Courts determined to be excessive in view of the actual fines established for this charge.
PS The power of Thomas’s concurring opinion is that he addresses the history of what constitutes excessive fines. While not providing a number he does outline how the issues has been argued in the past.
You are right. Reality is amazing.
They want to demonstrate that she is still breathing and can compose a sentence.
Are we to believe what was written is in fact what happened?
Pretty big stretch.
>
Income tax has its very own amendment that can supersede the 4th.
>
Interesting. Can you point me to EXACTLY where that verbiage may lie? Unlike the repeal of Prohibition, I read ZILCH in the 16th that supersedes the 4th, 5th, nor the 13th (what IS the ‘income tax’ but slavery by tier(s)?).
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.