Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Civil Forfeiture Is Going Down!
I am over the moon with the Supreme Court and the new alliance between Gorsuch and Sotomayor. From Slate:
In Philadelphia, prosecutors seized one couple’s house because their son was arrested with $40 worth of drugs. Officials there seized 1,000 other houses and 3,300 vehicles before a 2018 settlement that led to reparations for victims. In 2014, federal prosecutors used asset forfeiture to take more stuff than burglars. One Texas police department seized property from out-of-town drivers, then colluded with the district attorney to coerce these drivers into waiving their rights. Law enforcement frequently targets poor people and racial minorities, figuring they are unable to fight back.
No longer?
So while Gorsuch and Sotomayor led the fight on Wednesday, there’s probably a cross-ideological coalition of justices prepared to invalidate excessive forfeitures. Such a ruling would reflect broad agreement across the ideological spectrum that forfeiture has gone too far. ….
Only Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito expressed any interest in allowing civil asset forfeiture to continue unabated. A majority of the court seems poised to rule that all 50 states must stop seizing property in a way that’s grossly disproportionate to the crime committed—a holy grail of criminal justice reformers. In one fell swoop, defendants will receive new protections against the legalized theft of their stuff.
This is a Very Big Deal.
Published in General
Excellent.
Chevron, anyone?
Good.
I’m all for punishing criminals.
For prohibiting criminals from profiting from their crime
For seizing property of criminals as part of remunerating the victim of a crime
But it is scary when our government behaves like a seasoned criminal.
It’s always dangerous to put faith in the tea-leaf reading involved in trying to discern justices’ opinions based on oral arguments. Especially when the sub-headline is “the far left and the far right are finding common ground!”.
But this would be a dream come true on so many levels that I can’t help feeling a little giddy at the moment.
When doesn’t it?
I’ll get excited if it happens.
The case the Court accepted involves the forfeiture of a vehicle, a Land Rover, a drug dealer used to transport drugs en route to drug deals with undercover police. I wish the facts of the case were more egregious. On the facts, the drug dealer is not a victim likely to gain sympathy for an injustice.
I really really like the way Gorsuch thinks. In every case I’ve heard about him, he seems to get things exactly right. I even found an 8-1 ruling where he was the lone dissenter, but he seemed to have perfect logic.
I’ve heard that it happens more often than we think, but I do love to see left and right seeing the same wisdom and acting on it. Gives me a tiny bit of hope for some justice.
They agree on a lot of cases that aren’t hot button issues and there’s not much riding on.
There was a case a few years ago where a couple had managed to save $6K to purchase a new car from another state. They were stopped by N.M. by Hwy Patrol, because they were scraggy looking Hispanic. No other reason. The police discovered the 6K in cash and confiscated it, claiming it must be drug money. Absolutely no proof. I don’t remember if they ever got their money back. I think it is evil taking money from people where there isn’t a smidgen of proof of wrong doing.
Yes. The forfeiture laws are terrible and I hope they go down. I wish the facts of the case were more compelling like the example you gave.
Thankfully, Ohio reformed its civil forfeiture law in 2007. Among other things, the reform gives the the prosecutor the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Many states’ laws require the victim to prove that the property was not used in or proceeds of crime. The Ohio statute requires a proportionality review, i.e., that the forfeiture is not an excessive fine. As to your example, the statute does not permit forfeitures of cash under $15,000 adjusted for inflation.
Good to hear that Ohio passed some positive legislation on the evil practice. This is just one aspect of the war on drugs and the bureaucratic build up over nearly a half century which so far has achieved absolutely nothing positive but has enriched drug traffickers and caused our law enforcement apparatus to drift toward totalitarian powers.
Great!!! Now if they will just tweak Kelo so that that too is functionally illegal. For those who don’t know (which I guess is nobody here at Ricochet) Kelo is a Supreme Court decision that allows governments enrich themselves (ultimately in expectation of greater tax revenues) and enrich others by taking property from one person and giving it to someone else for their benefit and profit.
Kelo is such an egregious miscarriage of justice that I can’t believe it stands as law, and I get spitting mad whenever I think about it.
Let’s be clear. The government is not our friend.
All of the Liberals voted with the Conservatives 8-0 on the frog case.
All of the Supreme Court voted against Nixon 8-0.
The Supreme Court will often vote unamiously when the lower court’s or government goes too far. It is good news.
I would be thrilled for the Chevron and Kelo decisions to also be reversed.
And Roe and Casey.
whoa. I am sure Sotomayar is acting on a racial angle while Gorsuch is acting on limiting govt. overreach. The might be on the same side, but I don’t for a minute think they are seeing the same wisdom.
I’m glad justice doesn’t always depend on righting the wrongs done to sympathetic characters.
That is true only when core progressive issues are not at state. The liberal justices will not join conservatives when it comes to commerce clause overreach; they recognize no bounds on the government in that area; and their definition of “goes too far” is much less expansive than justices like Gorsuch – they will not undermine core doctrines of deference to the administrative state – the egregious nature of the frog case and EPA’s wetland enforcement approach which denied property owners any means of defending themselves, are the exceptions to the rule.
Moreover if you look at most of Obama’s district and appellate court appointees and what is waiting in the wings for the next generation of appointees when there is a Democrat president, they are completely result oriented (as we saw in the appellate court decision in the frog case). We can expect the obliteration of the constitution to be complete if they ever regain control.
Not always, but more often that one would like.
Yes. When civil rights organizations mount long legal campaigns, they are very careful in their selection of plaintiffs or defendants. This case, on its face, is not “good.” That said, if the Court uses this case to articulate a new, more restrictive test, the drug dealer could lose while all of us, and the Constitution, win.
Taking the view laid out in The Hollow Hope, the Court operates inside the dominant cultural, political consensus. If so, the current movement for criminal justice reform, supported by both parties and by cultural elites, signals that a decision in favor of civil asset forfeiture reforms is politically safe and sustainable.
Take the bet, but don’t put your car title on it. The decision to hear the case is significant in itself, indicating at least a desire to consider the issue anew.
I hope the result is what you anticipate, but even if it is, I bet @dong and @gumbymark are right and am skeptical that Sotomayor’s contribution will demonstrate a new love for the Constitution rather than proving her result-driven vote to be the correctness of a stopped clock.
I feel pretty good about the anticipated result, but agree that Sotomayor’s position will be the exception, not the rule for her.
The problem I have with seizing property is how does the government know which property was purchased from ill gotten gains? The government should simply fine the convicted person, then let him determine what assets to sell to pay for his misdeeds, thus renumerating the victims. Oh, and the victims should be made whole first before the government gets any money.
Example: What if his wife, running a legitimate business, purchased their house? The government can arbitrarily decide to seize the house, when ill gotten gains were not used. No, I want all governments only seizing property under eminent domain.
No, unless something was stolen and can be returned to the rightful owner, government should not seize property permanently.
And that on a very tight leash.
Kelo is one ruling I’d love to see overturned – and quickly . . .
Money is Fungible.
but should sympathy should be part of any judicial ruling?
The Law.
if the forfeiture followed the duly passed law…ok. if the law is bad, or if the law has loopholes that permit egregious enforcement and penalty, maybe the law should be changed?
Drugs are against the Law. If the drug dealer broke the law, maybe his forfeiture is legit…there is cost involved in chasing down the lawbreaker. Maybe the forteiture law should take that angle?
But if it isn’t written that way, you can’t change the enforcement of the law just because you have an unsympathetic party, whose property you’d like to have.