[HN Gopher] The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture ___________________________________________________________________ The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture Author : luu Score : 58 points Date : 2022-05-20 17:34 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.yalelawjournal.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.yalelawjournal.org) | trevcanhuman wrote: | (2016) | dataangel wrote: | didn't it already get ruled unconstitutional? | wahern wrote: | No. I believe the most recent high-profile case merely | established that state civil forfeitures were subject to the | 8th Amendment prohibition on excessive fines: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana | | It's unlikely it would ever be declared unconstitutional. More | likely (but still not very) courts will eat around the edges, | minimizing the ability of law enforcement to use asset | forfeitures as a substitute for proper criminal prosecution. | (Note that in the Timbs case he _was_ simultaneously criminally | prosecuted, and (IIRC) it was undisputed his vehicle was used | in the commission of a crime. Depending on how you look at it, | this context could bode well or bode poorly for future judicial | reform.) Much more likely still is legislatures passing laws to | reign in law enforcement use of civil forfeiture. Still a very | long way to go, though. | lumost wrote: | It occurred to me that civil forfeiture in the US may have | been an attempt to regulate highway robbery. The US | traditionally had giant swaths of lightly populated territory | between population centers. Most other regions of the world | with similar dynamics have struggled with lawmen or other | highwaymen illegally confiscating property in such | situations. | | Did we simply make highway robbery legal if it's done with a | badge? | s5300 wrote: | I think it's a bit less nefarious than that & mostly just | another way to fuck over minorities & make them submissive | to authority. | | It isn't too often you hear about joe average white guy | getting held up in a civil forfeiture dispute. Completely | innocent aside from not being white on the other hand, it | comes to light every now & then. | | Without trying to incite a political flame war in these | comments - you don't really hear about the US Republican | Party of personal freedoms & ability to shoot & kill | anybody who steals from you trying to overturn civil | forfeiture. | ncmncm wrote: | Right, they don't expect to have it done to them. | dkackman11 wrote: | This, along with the private prison systems, creates perverse | incentives in criminal justice. | rayiner wrote: | It should be noted that the DOJ started phasing out private | prisons last year, and most states don't have any significant | number of people in private prisons: | https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private- | priso.... Additionally, the prisons folks tend to hear about in | terms of abuses, like Rikers in NY, are good old public | prisons. | ncmncm wrote: | Private prisons are good at silencing prisoners. | rayiner wrote: | [citation needed] | Supermancho wrote: | https://www.fedemploymentlaw.com/blog/2022/03/a-spotlight | -on... | | Google is there for your further investigation beyond the | first result. | badrabbit wrote: | In Justice period. The victims often have no relation to crime | or criminal prosecution. | | It's not a bug, it's a feature. The system is working as | intended. It is no accident that the US has #1 incarceration | rate on the planet. A significant portion of the population and | and even higher portion of those in government believe | manipulation and control of certain groups in the population is | more important than any notion of justice or law an order. | Their love for their country pales in comparison to their | hatred and greed. | Hnrobert42 wrote: | > The victims often have no relation to crime or criminal | prosecution. | | What does this mean? | ncmncm wrote: | Somebody else used their property to e.g. transport | contraband. Often enough, stole it. | | Wasn't long ago a twin engine Beechcraft was stolen, used, | and confiscated. The owner never got it back because the | DEA argued they needed it. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | When they outlawed general slavery, they specifically enshrined | the type of slavery taking place at state penns every day. | Terry_Roll wrote: | I'm surprised people still fall for a legal dictatorship | masquerading as a democracy that has the audacity to not even | teach a TL;DR of law in school to everyone and give periodic | updates to the public ensuring all have seen and _agreed_ to the | legal dictatorship! | | What about the taxation dictatorship? The beauty of institutional | dictatorships like Law, Finance & Medicine is they dont die | unlike people. Your enemies are the people who control these | institutions. | | At least the human dictator's like Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, | Hitler, Stalin, Franco, and others didnt attempt to hide their | existence and their cruelty unlike the institutional | dictatorships who pass the buck to another entity if they cant | lay the blame on your failings whilst not recognising their own | failings! | | Trump was more intelligent than most realise when he called for a | protest outside the Capitol Building. These faceless individuals | who control your life in return for monkey tokens are your real | enemies because they control so many people's lives and they only | allow you to change the diversionary puppets aka politicians | every few years. | | When people wise up to whats going on, it always ultimately boils | down to the most violent win, with that in mind, be mindful we | could all be sleepwalking into another world war to make everyone | humble to the puppeteers. | jstx1 wrote: | This is on the long list of reasons why the US sometimes seems to | be hostile to its own citizens. | Maursault wrote: | That's lot of reaching around to dilute and negate the 4th, 5th | and 14th Amendments. | sudden_dystopia wrote: | F'in lawyers. Scourge of humanity. Yea I know, there are good | people that are lawyers. But F them too. | a1369209993 wrote: | > Yea I know, there are good people that are lawyers. | | As the saying goes, ninety percent of lawyers give the rest a | bad name. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | Although I am not a lawyer, One weakness I see in this analysis | is that it is taking as precedent things enforced mainly extra- | territorially (smuggling) and using it to justify actions that | have been mainly enforced domestically (civil forfeiture). | | I personally would have a lot less problem with civil forfeiture | if it were mainly something enforced at the borders. If someone | attempts to smuggle in a bunch of cocaine at the US-Canada border | and gets their car and the cocaine confiscated, is not as | troubling. | | I do have a bunch of issues if someone is driving along in the | US, gets pulled over and then gets his car confiscated. | | The Constitution and Jurisprudence has made a distinction between | actions performed extra-territorially and domestically. | | This analysis ignores that distinction and as such IMO does not | establish that civil forfeiture as practiced currently is | constitutional. | | EDIT: | | One example of this distinction is piracy. When America was first | founded, pirates captured on the high seas were often summarily | executed. However, the practice could not be used to justify the | police doing that domestically. | RHSeeger wrote: | > If someone attempts to smuggle in a bunch of cocaine at the | US-Canada border and gets their car and the cocaine | confiscated, is not as troubling. | | But in this case, the person could be arrested and it should be | (is?) possible to confiscate the possessions they have on them. | But the confiscation should be "against the person", not the | object. And if the judicial system can't prove the person was | guilty of a crime, and that those possessions were involved, | then they should need to return them. | | The way things currently work, that same person could be coming | across the border with $20,000 in cash on them. The police see | it and decide it _must_ be crime related because "who would | carry that kind of money on them for any other reason" and | confiscate the money... all without actually charging the | person with a crime. | | And that's bad. And the fact that it's a border issue is | irrelevant. At most, the border officers should be saying | "we're not comfortable with you bringing that much money over | the border in cash, you are denied entry", and sending them | back along their way. | hitovst wrote: | We are occupied. All who are complicit can never allow us to | become a lawful society. | phkahler wrote: | >> and the fact that claimants are not afforded the procedural | protections that the Constitution requires for criminal | defendants. | | This is a hit piece on the constitution. The secure in our | possessions language is plain and simple. To pretend those | protections are more nuanced is disingenuos. | SnowHill9902 wrote: | That's because forfeiture is a civil claim against assets not a | criminal procedure against a defendant. It's argued that those | assets were not the defendant's to begin with. | bcrosby95 wrote: | It's basis is in abandoned property that was likely illegally | obtained, where they can't find an owner. | | It's been stretched to include having $2k in cash in your car | while driving. | crooked-v wrote: | Except for all the cases when they obviously are, making the | whole process a blatant end run around the fourth amendment. | oh_sigh wrote: | That would be fine with me if the onus was on the government | to prove the assets weren't legally acquired. Now it is up to | the person to prove the assets were legally acquired. | SnowHill9902 wrote: | I'm just explaining the rationale. At this point it's a | moral discussion rather than legal: does the "war on drugs" | et al trump individual rights? If yes, you'd be in favor of | forfeiture, if not, you'd be against. | crooked-v wrote: | Except it's not really a moral discussion, it's a legal | one--and the most fundamental laws of the country | obviously ban the tactic. | | The article uses a lot of sophistry to try and argue that | the plain and obvious intended reading of the Fourth | Amendment isn't correct, and that's obviously nonsense, | both in a vacuum and in the context of when and why it | was written. | SnowHill9902 wrote: | Laws codify the underlying morality of a society so they | are not divorced and independent one from the other. | There may be a significant lag between both, though and | at times one may lead the other. | ncmncm wrote: | No. With no conviction, there is no legitimate claim of a | crime. | | Very often the confiscation is not connected to an | indictment, or even an arrest. "Oh, you have cash! We'll | take that, you're free to go. Scram." | | Sometimes the cop just wants your Camaro. | ncmncm wrote: | A thief can always explain why he was perfectly justified in | stealing. | SnowHill9902 wrote: | Probably won't cut it. | sdenton4 wrote: | Unless the thief is a cop, of course. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-21 23:00 UTC)