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 ...
Many of the court’s decisions in history have been unanimous.
If you go to Supreme Court Database, you will find that since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions.
Oh! Thank you. So this doesn’t address forfeitures where in some cases no charges at all are ever pressed? Disappointing; those are the cases that seem to a lot of us to be the most egregious ones. Will SCOTUS ever look at that?
Great, it’s about time for the government’s leash to be jerked over the organized theft known as asset forfeiture.
Of course, only Thomas got the reasoning right. The 14th Amendment plainly provies that no “State [shall] deprive any person of . . . property, without due process of law.” Most states’ civil asset forfeiture laws do exactly that, and are unconstitutional. There’s no need to talk about the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment.
Do you believe Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are part of the conspiracy? How about the public gallery? All plants along with various Court officials?
not so fat....... el chappo will be a federal case, not a state or local case.
Probably heard before Kavanaugh was confirmed.
my question is about the appropriateness of asset forfeiture after guilty finding. Drug cases are heard in every jurisdiction. My question stands.
I’’l go. The court case includes due process therefore the forfeiture should not the crime. In my case, Chaopo had nothing and enriched himself through illegal drug sale. The riches are susceptible to forfeiture as part of sentencing.
Heard before Kananaugh was confirmed.
I oppose forfeiture until sentencing.
I support seizing gain, as part of sentencing, which is derived from the illegal activity.
Of course RGB’s staff wrote this!!!
And the other Justices deferred to her (her clerks actually) to write it to honor this ol craptastic crone.
Kavanaugh signed the majority opinion.
I figured Kanavagh was the man out with this 8-0 decision. But the NY Times artice failed to mention this which is important.
Actually, it was decided on very narrow grounds, specifically only that the seizure was “excessive”. It ruled on nothing at all concerning the frequent lack of due process (court hearing with all the rights of the defendent, and the right of innocent until PROVEN guilty) IN COURT BEFORE ANY PROPETY IS TAKEN.
The Keebler Elf must be so unhappy today, unlimited asset forfeiture was one of his favorite policies.
Civil forfeiture goes way back even to the Salem Witch Trials in which those who plead immediately had their property seized.
Those who plead “Guilty” were fined and jailed.
Those who plead ‘Not Guilty” were tried and hanged.
One man refused to make a plea, so they slowly crushed him to death under rocks. His refusal to make a plea meant the government could NOT seize his lands so his family were not thrown out.
It does address those; it extends to the states the 1993 Austin ruling that said federal "civil" forfeitures were subject to scrutiny under the Excessive Fines clause.
Your local town does that already with zoning
The EPA just has more guns
True - but it did say that such lack of due process, aka "civil" forfeiture, was no shield against scrutiny under the Excessive Fines clause. And let's face it, the forfeitures the government is most interested in are excessive ones.
Unanimous!
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.