The first step down the long road of reversing civil forfeitures

www.supremecourt.gov...

Its been a log time in coming, and there's still a long way to go.
Note the 7 to 1 ruling.

Buck

a reply to: flatbush71

With power comes corruption. Not surprising.

a reply to: flatbush71

Whats the summary?? Also, in the future, please write a disclaimer notifying the reader that the link is a direct file download. My security stuff is set very high and kinda went a bit honky.

For those not wanting to dig through a 30 page decision paper:

When a criminal conviction is invalidated by a reviewing court and no retrial will occur, is the State obliged to refund fees, court costs, and restitution exacted from the defendant upon, and as a consequence of, the conviction? Our answer is yes. Absent conviction of a crime, one is presumed innocent. Under the Colorado law before us in these cases, however, the State retains conviction-related assessments unless and until the prevailing defendant institutes a discrete civil proceeding and proves her innocence by clear and convincing evidence. This scheme, we hold, offends the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.

From what I gather - Colorado state law required a person who had forfeited assets during a criminal conviction to file a civil claim in the event that their conviction was overturned rather than the state just returning all the assets that had been seized. Even after a civil claim had been filed it was left to the defendant to prove that they were innocent and deserved to have the assets returned to them, rather than incumbent on the state to prove why they should be allowed to keep the assets.

As Justice Stephen Breyer skeptically observed, on that theory, a state could impose a significant fine as the punishment for a criminal conviction, and then keep the money even if the conviction is vacated on appeal – rendering the appeal pointless.

The justices ruled that the state "scheme" (quoted because that's how the justices referred to it) failed pretty much every test that can be applied to it when it comes to whether it was a violation of due process or not.

I can not fu**ing believe this is a actual law.
Just guilty enough to take your money and property.

And Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions. Pp. 6–8.

originally posted by: DAVID64
I can not fu**ing believe this is a actual law.
Just guilty enough to take your money and property.

And Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions. Pp. 6–8.

Hence why it was called, several times, a scheme.

From what I was able to get out of the argument analysis, the justices were pretty incredulous at how the law was written. The attorney for Nelson and Madden didn't do an amazing job of presenting oral arguments and still managed to win a decision.

a reply to: Shamrock6

For those not wanting to dig through a 30 page decision paper:

Thank you for that

Much appreciated!!!

originally posted by: DAVID64
I can not fu**ing believe this is a actual law.
Just guilty enough to take your money and property.

And Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions. Pp. 6–8.

That was ambitious of the lawmakers... they probably knew no one would question or challenge it. America's Founding Fathers would be loading up their muskets and marching if something like this was enacted on their watch

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
Also, in the future, please write a disclaimer notifying the reader that the link is a direct file download. My security stuff is set very high and kinda went a bit honky.

in the future just hover your cursor over the link and your browser should give you a preview of the full url (in firefox it shows bottom left of the window) there you can see this url ends with .pdf this tells you it is a pdf.........
www.supremecourt.gov...

and if your IT staff was freaking out over a pdf from a .gov site then they are incompetent.