Civil Forfeiture Is Going Down!

iWe
iWe
6623
 

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
Join Ricochet!
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 66 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet
  1. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw
    6:14 PM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2018

    Audio.

    • #61
  2. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk
    7:11 PM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2018

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    And obviously you don’t know my philosophy: I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human than someone who doesn’t believe anything.

    You’re just as God made you.

     

    I confess. That’s a quote from David St. Hubbin of Spinal Tap fame. Don’t tell anyone, but it’s true.

    I got it. I paraphrased the hotel desk clerk back at you.

    • #62
  3. JosePluma Coolidge
    JosePluma
    @JosePluma
    3:52 PM EST ⋅ Dec 1, 2018

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Transcript.

    Thank you so much for the hyperlink. My favorite part of the argument was by Justice Gorsuch. Classic. Justice Gorsuch is the reincarnation of Justice Scalia. (This is on page 32 of the 73 page transcript.)

    JUSTICE GORSUCH: General, before we

    get to the in rem argument and its application

    to this case, can we just get one thing off the

    table? We all agree that the Excessive Fines

    Clause is incorporated against the states.

    Whether this particular fine qualifies because

    it’s an in rem forfeiture, another question.

    But can we at least get the — the

    theoretical question off the table, whether you

    want to do it through the Due Process Clause

    and look at history and tradition, you know,

    gosh, excessive fines, guarantees against them

    go back to Magna Carta and 1225, the English

    Bill of Rights, the Virginia Declaration of

    Rights, pretty deep history, or whether one

    wants to look at privileges and immunities, you

    might come to the same conclusion. Can we at

    least — can we at least agree on that?

    MR. FISHER: I have two responses to

    that. First, with -­
    JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, I — I think

    — I think a “yes” or “no” would probably be a

    good starting place.

    (Laughter.)

    To quote Reverend Lovejoy: “Short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but…”

    I’ll bet that wouldn’t cut it either.

    • #63
  4. JosePluma Coolidge
    JosePluma
    @JosePluma
    4:01 PM EST ⋅ Dec 1, 2018

    Paraphrase of an actual conversation I had with a narcotics detective:

    Me:  “Wow, that’s a great paint job.” (On the car the detective was driving.)

    Detective:  “Yea, we got this beauty off a drug dealer.  I was going to do the deal at his house, but when we saw what he was driving we had him do a delivery.”  (So he could seize the car as an instrument of the crime.)

    Anyone see any problems there?

    • #64
  5. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown
    5:43 PM EST ⋅ Dec 1, 2018

    JosePluma (View Comment):

    Paraphrase of an actual conversation I had with a narcotics detective:

    Me: “Wow, that’s a great paint job.” (On the car the detective was driving.)

    Detective: “Yea, we got this beauty off a drug dealer. I was going to do the deal at his house, but when we saw what he was driving we had him do a delivery.” (So he could seize the car as an instrument of the crime.)

    Anyone see any problems there?

    Moral. Hazard. The drug trade corrupts everyone and everything it touches.

    • #65
  6. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker
    7:58 PM EST ⋅ Dec 1, 2018

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    I got it. I paraphrased the hotel desk clerk back at you.

    Thanks.  Now I have to go look it up.  Dang.

    • #66
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet