Huge Victory Against Civil Asset Seizure SCOTUS 9-0 Decision

Well, sure there are some agencies not very happy about this ruling since it will impact their budget. I for one am glad to see this decision as giving authorities incentives for taking your property is just wrong.

Far too many people have had their property taken (many without even being charged with anything) with no way to reasonably get it back.


www.thedailybeast.com...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck a unanimous blow to aggressive civil forfeiture tactics, ruling that the federal prohibition against excessive fines applies on a state level.

The court’s 9-0 ruling was authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,” Ginsburg wrote, later adding that “Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties [...] The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming.”

www.supremecourt.gov...

www.scotusblog.com...

originally posted by: infolurker
Well, sure there are some agencies not very happy about this ruling...

Good, screw them. There were far too many instances of people who had not committed any crimes having their property stolen and then given an arduous process to then try and recover what was wrongly taken.

Just curious, was that the real RBG or the clone?

This is great and all, but what the hell took them so long?

Wow, i remember hearing about this like 3 years ago. Glad they finally did something about it.

What a blow to the 70% tax rate.

Excessive fine at the state level.

originally posted by: neo96
What a blow to the 70% tax rate.

Excessive fine at the state level.

Ha!

As I have mentioned before, that high tax rate "for the rich" is really for our 401K and related retirement accounts.

a reply to: infolurker

Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,” Ginsburg wrote, later adding that “Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties [...] The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming.”

Cut their own throats.

Great! About damn time they put an end to that nonsense. Civil asset forfeiture has become a money-making racket for many police departments. Much like speeding tickets, they push it aggressively because it financially benefits them.

It's about damn time!!!

Never should have been a thing to begin with. I haven't read the decision yet, so I don't know the scope of the ruling, but generally speaking, there should be absolutely no "forfeiture" of any kind unless and until due process has played out. Period.

Confiscating assets based on real or imagined suspicion, and then making innocent folks jump through this, that and the other legal hoop to get their wrongly confiscated assets back is contrary to EVERYTHING the Constitution demands of government.

Weekend at Ruthie's is getting good.
For liberty

Wow!

I would wager the law-suits that are going to be filed soon, will most likely bankrupt some municipalities due to their forfeiture practices.

Buckle-up folks this drama train has just left the station.

a reply to: Realtruth
No sympathy for the municipalities from me. The whole concept was flagrantly unconstitutional, and rather despotic: let's just have the cops take your stuff, and then make you prove your innocence to get it back.

Hmmmm, 9-0. That says something.

We need to also pay attention to the disconnect between the branches of the government at the moment. The judicial obviously says this is wrong.

But didn't Sessions just order a much more aggressive stance on civil forfeiture from the Justice Department, which is executive branch?

And I have seen nobody rescind those orders yet. Not Rosenstein, not Whitaker and not Barr. So the executive branch stands in opposition to the 9-0 Supreme Court view.

Then you have this from back in 2018, where Forbes talks about the 2017 efforts to undermine the Sessions plans and propose amendments and what have you - and then it all went nowhere, the Congress at the time also supported forfeiture in a more aggressive form.

The current Congress may have a different view but I doubt it.

So we have two branches of the government in stark opposition to what the Supreme Court just clearly said.

What gives?

a reply to: infolurker

What about the Fed's imposing gross amounts of restitution for low level convictions payable for 20 years and taking any money made from real property at anytime during the 20 year statute of limitations ?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Around here it’s the feds, man. Our state does allow for civil forfeiture but stipulates the proceeds have to fund the school system. LE isn’t allowed to touch it, and property can only be seized after a criminal conviction involving said property.

But then come the feds, who have quite literally seized property in the county from owners because of a previous owners criminal troubles, and try to paint it like its them just helping out the community.

The program could actually do some good but the way most places actually implement it, it’s absolutely ripe for abuse because it incentivizes policing for profit. Good to hear they ruled the way they did.

So does this civil asset forfeiture ruling also extent to firearms? Makes that 9-0 decision very powerful if so because it has been used on accusations of mental/emotional instability to justify firearm theft by state/local governments.

a reply to: infolurker

That was a good decision. Abuse of power never works. Some smaller cities' (and maybe bigger) police forces have acted like mobs enriching themselves.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
So does this civil asset forfeiture ruling also extent to firearms? Makes that 9-0 decision very powerful if so because it has been used on accusations of mental/emotional instability to justify firearm theft by state/local governments.

I wasn't even going to go there, but yes the implications for this landmark decision opens a wide spectrum for legal interpretation.

Get the popcorn out because it maybe retroactive as well.

Makes me happy that there’s something we can all vehemently agree about!!

I am truly ecstatic about this!!
Asset forfeiture has been such a crock, and the fact that this was unanimously approved gives me a glimmer of hope.