Unanimous win Against Excessive Civil Asset Forefeiture

Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 months, 3 weeks ago to Government
23 comments | Share | Flag

Excellent win against law enforcement stealing from the public (criminals and not) for funding. Unanimous opinion!

My favorite is the line from Gorsuch:
“Here we are in 2018, still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights,” Justice Neil Gorsuch scoffed to Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher. “Really? Come on, General.”
SOURCE URL: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/supreme-court-rules-against-civil-forfeitures-rbg-timbs.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    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)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 3 months, 2 weeks ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dark_star 3 months, 2 weeks ago
    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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 2 weeks ago
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 3 months, 2 weeks ago
    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!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo