Jump to content

Supreme Court unanimously strikes against excessive civil forfeiture


Starkiller

Recommended Posts

Not just civil forfeiture, but that’s part of it. The only question is who decides what is excessive?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-constitutional-protection-against-excessive-fines-applies-to-state-actions/2019/02/20/204ce0d4-3522-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_court-1105am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

 

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose fines and seize property.

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

 

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies... Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

 

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out here in California there are (or maybe used to be) laws that allowed the government to seize cars of people who solicited prostitution.  I always thought that seemed like a rather stiff monetary penalty for what typically amounts to a harmless act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, abenjami said:

Out here in California there are (or maybe used to be) laws that allowed the government to seize cars of people who solicited prostitution.  I always thought that seemed like a rather stiff monetary penalty for what typically amounts to a harmless act.

That blows. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Legaltitan said:

That blows. 

Yeah, especially for a guy who thought the whole point was to get blown!

 

IIRC it didn't apply to all cases though.  There were some kind of requirements like you had to be in a car or you had to have driven to the location, or something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Not just civil forfeiture, but that’s part of it. The only question is who decides what is excessive?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-constitutional-protection-against-excessive-fines-applies-to-state-actions/2019/02/20/204ce0d4-3522-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_court-1105am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

 

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose fines and seize property.

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

 

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies... Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

 

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.

This is excellent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, abenjami said:

Out here in California there are (or maybe used to be) laws that allowed the government to seize cars of people who solicited prostitution.  I always thought that seemed like a rather stiff monetary penalty for what typically amounts to a harmless act.

Enforcing laws is big business. How do you think we pay for over inflated police budgets? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or West Virginia:

 

If you are pulled over carrying a lot of cash they can just take it and it’s hell getting it back.

 

Quote

Under a little-known legal tool called civil forfeiture, the government can permanently take a person’s property if an officer suspects it is connected to a crime.


In criminal cases, forfeiture occurs after a conviction, ordered by a judge as part of a sentence. In civil forfeiture, even if the rightful owner is not charged with any crime, the person stands to lose the property permanently.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/09/01/police-seized-couples-cash-they-couldnt-get-it-back-until-they-went-public/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d08d91675a11

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...