Supreme court curbs states' power to levy fines and seize property through civil forfeiture

When picking, Trump only cared how they feel about one question: “Is the President above the law?”. Since the list was from the Federalist Society, their abortion position is a given, but the rest might be up in the air.

5 Likes

I would hope you’re correct, but I’m not sure that you are. This doesn’t end civil forfeiture, just “excessive” civil forfeiture.

Anti-abortion statutes continue to gnaw away at Roe v Wade, even when law after law is struck down.

I haven’t noticed this. I wish it were true. From all I’ve seen, states (mostly red states) love asset forfeiture. It’s free money to self-fund state and local police and keep taxes (and services) low. And it incurs “zero damage” if state police are preying on “outsiders” passing through on the Interstates. The only thing that would stop this practice is morality, and, well, you’re dealing with evangelical christians here, so…

4 Likes

Except it was specifically about Civil Asset Forfeiture. And in the majority opinion, RBG states that Civil Asset Forfeiture violates due process because it is a de facto fine, and fines for criminal offences have statutory limits. Therefore, any forfeiture that exceeds the statutory fine limit violates due process.

While not explicitly tanking all civil asset forfeiture, it certainly gives legs to the argument that, in any case where there is no conviction for a crime, the “fine” would inherently exceed the statutory limit.

13 Likes

That’s good news. If there’s no crime or prosecution or conviction, how do they determine if the forfeiture is in excess of the statutory fine?

1 Like

Great analysis, thanks!

If there’s no crime then the statutory fine is $0. So if you take the reasoning in this opinion to its logical conclusion, there can no longer be civil asset forfeiture in the absence of a conviction.

Of course, because of the way the US legal system works, someone will have to be the victim of civil asset forfeiture and then appeal and make this argument in order to end civil asset forfeiture. And that is assuming that at least 5 justices are willing to extend the argument that far. We shall see…

6 Likes

Revenue and control. Crimes against authority are pursued far more aggressively than crimes against individuals.

5 Likes

This is why I think Gorsuch was a bad pick for Trump’s purposes. Gorsuch’s opinions before he was nominated for SCOTUS suggest that he DOESN’T think the President is above the law. In fact, he seems to be very skeptical of abuses of executive power.

3 Likes

Sells drugs. Cops nab his car.

I wonder how many drugs are secretly nabbed by cops. Hmmm.

They effectively could still do that before without asset forfeiture. Levy a fine larger than the assets a person had and force them to go into bankruptcy to pay the fine.

One of the evils of asset forfeiture is that they could fine you, and take everything you might have to sell to pay the fine, then throw you in jail for failing to pay the fine.

Asset forfeiture is often used to double dip (or single dip without ever charging some one with a crime).

3 Likes

Despite having been aware of civil asset forfeiture practices in the US for a very, very long time, it still boggles my mind that something so seemingly blatantly unconstitutional is allowed to occur.
I mean, the original case that set the precedent made sense - it was a pirate ship. Who, specifically, owned the ship was besides the point as it was, itself, the means of committing the crimes. That situation doesn’t hold true in very many non-piracy-related crimes.

5 Likes

The warning is nice. I hope a decent ruling on that is not too far off.

Not really, it “just” subjects forfeiture to “reasonable” limits. So a crime with a max fine of $10,000 can’t result in forfeiture of a $40,000 asset. I expect it could result in forfeiture of a $8,000 asset.

Some states run forfeiture in a way that end runs the presumption of innocence. I imagine this does nothing to address that. So while it would prevent the state from taking your house on flimsy evidence that you did something with a $20,000 fine…they can take a car in the right price range on the same flimsy evidence that they likely couldn’t get a cash fine out of you for.

(but it is a step in the right direction!!!)

3 Likes

on the other hand, the trend among state legislatures has been to try to rein in police on asset forfeitures so perhaps this will work better than with roe.

4 Likes

Just last week I think I said civil forfeiture needs to end its fundamentally wrong.

And this week RBG makes it back and helps almost eliminate the practice with this ruling.

Finally, some actual justice from a Justice. This is something everyone should be able to cheer for. I can’t imagine why anyone would support the practice other than thieving police.

4 Likes

Well, these guys will probably be pissed.

7 Likes

https://global.discourse-cdn.com/boingboing/optimized/3X/8/5/85675d959f39c9d182ee9b5e92d488e4b1ccbfbb_1_405x500.jpg

6 Likes

Yeah, I was being excessively optimistic. But, I do think it’s a good sign that the Supreme Court is willing to weigh in on civil forfeiture, and the days of stealing property without proving a crime was committed are going to be numbered. If this case succeeded, then those cases should be slam dunks.

2 Likes

The state’s argument is kind of like arguing that 45 caliber is different from 45 100ths of an inch. It’s nothing but semantics. To the guy hit, there’s no difference whatever.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.