It is a downright shame but.....I AGREE!!

Agreed.
I support FreedomWorks who has been pushing for better legislation for protecting us in this.

Florida changed their laws... Making them better...

No doubt, but we are where we are and a win is a win.

Indeed. Especially now that the lot is still a lot!

Understood

Suggestion probably comes from the boss, and by that time it is in the impound.

One thing not to enforce. Another thing to buck the system.

Can’t disagree with that. One win at a time.

Such a good idea though... just steal from the wealthy...

Right-o!

This has its roots in anti-flee for monster drug dealer, and ran amuck! When wouldn’t government powers run amuck?

Excessive Civil Asset Forfeiture?
ALL Civil Asset Forfeiture seems excessive.

If someone is convicted of a crime, and you are taking ill-gotten gains... Then fine. BUT, to TAKE because the OBJECT is unproven to be ill-gotten is to steal!

Now if they could just revisit Kelo vs. New London and make certain no more eminent domain abuse occurs.

Yay! No more will you have to worry about having cash on you just to have it confiscated! It is about time something was done about this despotic practice!

One afternoon during 1973, I with one of my brothers entered Mexico at Mexicali and drove through mountainous terrain to Tijuana before seeing the Pacific Ocean for the first time in San Diego.
These days me dino does not want to go anywhere near the Mexican border.

There's always going to be some level of judgement call on proportionality. I don't know how one would eliminate it. Your point is well taken, however.

While it is an interesting ruling it did not address the violation by enforcement authorities to steal on a whim, it merely limits it. That you can be detained for any excuse and then have your property seized and you have to prove it (the property) was not involved in a crime violates the constitution on many levels and is morally reprehensible. I would think any decent policeman would refuse to comply with these seizures, which tells me there aren't many if any decent policemen. I haven't heard of any refusing to participate in this scheme.

That sounds great but for this bit:
" ...the fine must not be “grossly disproportional to the gravity of [the] offense.” Presumably, this same standard now applies to the states. But when is a forfeiture grossly disproportionate?"
The SCOTUS doesn't say and has left that to the states. What's a state supreme court going to say about that after already upholding the Civil Asset Forfeiture to begin with?

When I was in a flying club many years ago, we used to fly down to fishing camps on the Baja, rent pangas and SCUBA, but our insurance cost dramatically when the Mexican federales began planting drugs on gringo aircraft and confiscating them. Too bad, it was fun while it lasted.

Law enforcement being able to seize property due to an accusation and not a conviction has long stuck in me dino craw as "legalized" unAmeircan injustice.
It is something you should only expect from a corrupt third world dictatorship.

Thanks for posting some positive news.

It is amazing when you see a ruling like this in a court as divided as this one. Sessions was a big proponent of this approach. Not very free!

Consequences for those responsible for the government's inappropriate or damaging actions are long overdue!

Wednesday’s ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is sharp and concise
So RBG is not finished yet.
I suppose you could say that the injustice of those property confiscations is so obvious that even a deep lefty can see it.

Now the con-gress should add severe federal penalties against anyone (federal or state) who attempts to use asset forfeiture in any form at any level (awarded to those being looted, not awarded to the feds.) But they won't because theft by the state at any level is acceptable to the con-gress critters.
Thanks for posting, Thor.+1)