Fvck tha Police: Important civil asset forfeiture decision coming from SCOTUS

[Raoul Duke MU]

Is there a good argument for civil asset forfeiture? Sure, even though I believe it is used as a money-making scam my crooked-assed police and local governments. But I cannot believe the Supreme Court of Indiana had the audacity to argue the Eight Amendment does to apply to states. If two out of three clauses (excessive bail and cruel/unusual punishment) have been found by SCOTUS to apply to the states, it's pretty bold to assume SCOTUS will say differently on the third.

During arguments it appeared the Justices were leaning toward applying the 8th to the States (duh).

Also of interest is the State of Indiana arguing forfeiture is not a fine. Austin v US established for federal cases that asset forfeiture is a fine under the the 8th.

Perhaps we can soon get SCOTUS to rule on asset forfeiture and due process, or just shitbag the entire practice.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...justice-indiana-solicitor-general/2114347002/

https://reason.com/archives/2019/02/10/the-suv-thats-about-to-change

 

[GK4Herd]

I get angry every time I read a civil asset forfeiture horror story.

 

[i am herdman]

I get angry every time I read a civil asset forfeiture horror story.

So you are mad because this guy is selling poison and they kept his land rover? It was worth 42k. Well, it takes time to arrest him and resources. That costs money. Then, the junkies using cost money. The jail costs money. The court employees cost money.

I honestly don't feel sorry for him.

Just being devil's advocate here.

 

[herdfan06]

So you are mad because this guy is selling poison and they kept his land rover? It was worth 42k. Well, it takes time to arrest him and resources. That costs money. Then, the junkies using cost money. The jail costs money. The court employees cost money.

I honestly don't feel sorry for him.

Just being devil's advocate here.

"By Indiana law, however, the maximum fine for Timbs' crime was $10,000 — well below the value of the seized vehicle."

 

[GK4Herd]

So you are mad because this guy is selling poison and they kept his land rover? It was worth 42k. Well, it takes time to arrest him and resources. That costs money. Then, the junkies using cost money. The jail costs money. The court employees cost money.

I honestly don't feel sorry for him.

Just being devil's advocate here.

I wasn’t really referring to this case specifically. But since you bring it up let’s dig a little deeper. One of the foundations of democracy is that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The legal burden of proof is on the prosecution. Yet the entire act of asset forfeiture allows for assets to be seized without that burden of proof and a persons rightful day in court. What we’ve effectively done is place justice in the hands of those who benefit from the outcome. That is just wrong and runs counter to the tenets our society was founded on.

That doesn’t even take into account the 8th amendment that guarantees that no excessive fines be imposed.

I know in your lust to punish the “deadbeats” of society you turn a blind eye and calloused heart to this guy. That’s fine. He probably isn’t a good person. But be smarter than that. Satisfying our desire to punish the bad guys doesn’t serve us well if it erodes the foundations of everything that makes this country great. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[GK4Herd]

"By Indiana law, however, the maximum fine for Timbs' crime was $10,000 — well below the value of the seized vehicle."

Exactly. An 8th amendment issue. This isn’t about feeling sorry for this guy. I’m sure he’s a bum. But this is a very slippery slope when local police forces can mete out punishment and seize property without due process.

 

[i am herdman]

"By Indiana law, however, the maximum fine for Timbs' crime was $10,000 — well below the value of the seized vehicle."

He was dealing drugs in the car. It takes money to arrest him and so on. I find it hard to feel sorry for him.

 

[i am herdman]

Exactly. An 8th amendment issue. This isn’t about feeling sorry for this guy. I’m sure he’s a bum. But this is a very slippery slope when local police forces can mete out punishment and seize property without due process.

Oh I agree. But, here is the deal. How do you get the 10 grand in cash from him? He probably didn't have anything else or they don't in many cases. They are going to auction the car and only get a fraction of the 42k alleged value.

 

[herdfan06]

Oh I agree. But, here is the deal. How do you get the 10 grand in cash from him? He probably didn't have anything else or they don't in many cases. They are going to auction the car and only get a fraction of the 42k alleged value.

If they get more than $10k, should the guy get the difference?

 

[i am herdman]

If they get more than $10k, should the guy get the difference?

No, he should stop dealing drugs. It is not a fine. A fine is a cash payment for a crime or violation. He forfeited his car because he was using it to deal drugs.

 

[herdfan06]

Oh I agree. But, here is the deal. How do you get the 10 grand in cash from him? He probably didn't have anything else or they don't in many cases. They are going to auction the car and only get a fraction of the 42k alleged value.

No, he should stop dealing drugs. It is not a fine. A fine is a cash payment for a crime or violation. He forfeited his car because he was using it to deal drugs.

I thought you were saying they took the car because they could not get the $10k from him for the fine, sorry for the confusion.

 

[i am herdman]

I thought you were saying they took the car because they could not get the $10k from him for the fine, sorry for the confusion.

True.

 

[i am herdman]

This m'fer is selling drugs and agrees to this and is upset they took his Land Rover. I think he should feel lucky. The car is not worth 42k to the state. The car is what they will get at some auction to the highest bidder. It is also a message dont' f'ing sell drugs in out state.

Tyson tried to sell undercover officers four grams of heroin, he was arrested in 2013. As punishment, Tyson agreed to serve one year of house arrest and pay $1,200 in court fees.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

So you are mad because this guy is selling poison and they kept his land rover? It was worth 42k. Well, it takes time to arrest him and resources. That costs money. Then, the junkies using cost money. The jail costs money. The court employees cost money.

I honestly don't feel sorry for him.

Just being devil's advocate here.

We are mad in general about asset forfeiture because it is abused. This is a first step to reign that in. The law was designed to target drug kingpins....think seizing Tony Montana's stuff, because we know he wouldn't have a mansion without the drug business.

But that abuse is just part of it.

There is an argument that some dealers are targeted over others because they have something expensive, and the ones that do not are then ignored by the police. The ones without a Land Rover might very well be selling LOTS more dope. It's a perverse incentive of selective prosecution.

 

[herdfan06]

This m'fer is selling drugs and agrees to this and is upset they took his Land Rover. I think he should feel lucky. The car is not worth 42k to the state. The car is what they will get at some auction to the highest bidder. It is also a message dont' f'ing sell drugs in out state.

Tyson tried to sell undercover officers four grams of heroin, he was arrested in 2013. As punishment, Tyson agreed to serve one year of house arrest and pay $1,200 in court fees.

Do you believe police departments should be able to arbitrarily punish suspects and people convicted of crimes?

 

[i am herdman]

We are mad in general about asset forfeiture because it is abused. This is a first step to reign that in. The law was designed to target drug kingpins....think seizing Tony Montana's stuff, because we know he wouldn't have a mansion without the drug business.

But that abuse is just part of it.

There is an argument that some dealers are targeted over others because they have something expensive, and the ones that do not are then ignored by the police. The ones without a Land Rover might very well be selling LOTS more dope. It's a perverse incentive of selective prosecution.

I understand and agree with much of what you say.

 

[HerdFan73]

There are tons of stories of innocent people being fvcked over by asset forfeiture.

I'd rather just not be able to seize Tony Montanas mansion if the alternative is innocent people getting dicked over like this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ts-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuses-rage-on/amp/

 

[GK4Herd]

There are tons of stories of innocent people being fvcked over by asset forfeiture.

I'd rather just not be able to seize Tony Montanas mansion if the alternative is innocent people getting dicked over like this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ts-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuses-rage-on/amp/

Exactly. We’ve been posting these stories for years. This law is being used as a funding method for local law enforcement agencies. I can’t imagine that going wrong.

 

[GK4Herd]

I find it interesting that when this whole asset forfeiture thing gets discussed on a federal level, that law enforcement agencies and lobbies protest. It reminds me of the insurance industry back in he 80s and 90s and the estate tax. At that time the unified credit for exempting estate taxes was the equivalent of allowing $600,000 to pass to heirs before estate taxes kicked in. The use of unified credit trusts to allow that amount to double could be used to raise the exempt amount to 1.2 million, but after that you were on your own. A market for insurance at the time was working with people like farmers who were land rich and cash poor to set up life insurance trusts funded with 2nd to die policies to provide the liquidity to pay estate taxes so the farm wouldn’t have to be liquidated when it passed to the kids.

I enjoyed the value that could be provided. But then I discovered that the insurance lobby worked with congress fighting the abolition of it. That is plain hypocrisy. On one hand we were selling insurance due to the evils of the law and on the other hand the very industry was fighting relief from it.

This is the same thing with law enforcement lobbying to keep asset forfeiture. They are for a fundamentally unfair law for their own self interest.

 

[WV-FAN]

for this specific case, he claims he only sold it to a couple cops and nobody else. pffft or bwahahaha, whichever . . . and yeah, whatever.

not sure how i feel about this. i understand where you guys are coming from, but all the same, look at gk's el chapo case. perhaps i don't get it. that fvcker probly didn't have a pot to piss in prior to trafficking and made all of his money from running drugs. why shouldn't it all be confiscated? why shouldn't drug dealers lose everything they have? if it can be proven assets were acquired as a result of illegal ops, all assets should be confiscated. if personal assets are used to break the law, they should be confiscated, no dollar limit.

here's a cool idea: don't break the fvcking law and you won't lose your shit.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

why shouldn't drug dealers lose everything they have? if it can be proven assets were acquired as a result of illegal ops, all assets should be confiscated. if personal assets are used to break the law, they should be confiscated, no dollar limit.

1. That's a problem, because it does not have to be proven.
2. Perhaps the police and government should be held to the same standard. Used your cop car to take my assets when I did nothing wrong, and then I prove I did nothing wrong? Sweet, I have always wanted a cop car, give it me.
3. Dollar limit is where the 8th comes in with this case. There has to be reasonable limits on the government, because without limits it has limitless power. It's a fine balance between freedom and tyranny, isn't it?

 

[WV-FAN]

1. That's a problem, because it does not have to be proven.
2. Perhaps the police and government should be held to the same standard. Used your cop car to take my assets when I did nothing wrong, and then I prove I did nothing wrong? Sweet, I have always wanted a cop car, give it me.
3. Dollar limit is where the 8th comes in with this case. There has to be reasonable limits on the government, because without limits it has limitless power. It's a fine balance between freedom and tyranny, isn't it?

1. i agree, it should have to be proven. confiscate until trial; if proven guilty, criminal loses everything.
2. take care of number 1 and no need for this.
3. unless i'm missing something, which i may be, tell me why in a scenario like el chapo that his billions should be limited to a dollar limit when it was all "earned" illegally.

 

[GK4Herd]

for this specific case, he claims he only sold it to a couple cops and nobody else. pffft or bwahahaha, whichever . . . and yeah, whatever.

not sure how i feel about this. i understand where you guys are coming from, but all the same, look at gk's el chapo case. perhaps i don't get it. that fvcker probly didn't have a pot to piss in prior to trafficking and made all of his money from running drugs. why shouldn't it all be confiscated? why shouldn't drug dealers lose everything they have? if it can be proven assets were acquired as a result of illegal ops, all assets should be confiscated. if personal assets are used to break the law, they should be confiscated, no dollar limit.

here's a cool idea: don't break the fvcking law and you won't lose your shit.

But here's the thing...nobody is feeling sorry for this guy. That isn't the point. I don't believe that any reasonable person has a problem with confiscating any money or property that can be proven a result of illegal activity AFTER they are tried and found guilty. The problem is, we're handing out penalties on the enforcement level before due process takes place. We are also rewarding those on the enforcement level with financial gains prior to the same due process. Those who are so anxious to mete out justice to the bums are totally ignoring that the system is rife for misuse. And with the thousands of horror stories out there about confiscation of property from innocent people, it's easy to see that this is a big problem.

AFTER the trial if it can be proven they are guilty and what will be confiscated is a direct result of that illegal activity, THEN have at it. But the issue isn't being given fair judgement if we ignore the constitutionality of the issue in favor of satisfying our lust for justice.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

3. unless i'm missing something, which i may be, tell me why in a scenario like el chapo that his billions should be limited to a dollar limit when it was all "earned" illegally.

You are not missing anything, as the asset forfeiture laws were intended and sold to be used against people like him. It is the overuse, misuse, and abuse of such laws that are the issue. And the crazy notion only two out of three clauses of the 8th pertain to the states, as is the central issue in the case I posted....and that is more important than asset forfeiture.

Progressively worse penalties for progressively worse crime is a cornerstone of our legal system. The Founders wrote the excessive fines clause of the 8th because The Crown had a habit of taking everything for minor offenses. That's the exact situation we are back to.

The insanity of the abuse of civil forfeiture is a different issue, because it amounts to takings without due process. But we are not going to reform that until we clamp down on just how much police can profit from takings, it is too powerful of an incentive for a very powerful lobby.

 

[Bankerreturns]

I'm all for asset forfeiture, once you have been convicted of a crime and said crime lead to the acquisition of the assets to be seized.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

In a unanimous ruling, SCOTUS has held that duh, the excessive fines clause applies to the states.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

Some justices, too, had become worried about the state and local efforts.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a recent opinion that civil forfeitures have “become widespread and highly profitable.”

“This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” Thomas wrote, referring to reporting by The Washington Post and the New Yorker.

Ginsburg’s opinion makes clear that the clause applies, and that it is “incorporated” under the 14th Amendment’s due process Clause. Justices Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch agreed with the outcome, but said they would have relied on a different part of the 14th Amendment.

The case is Timbs v. Indiana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.1cbe5ac20edc

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

I was told Kavanaugh was a Fascist.

 

[herdfan06]

 

[GK4Herd]

I was told Kavanaugh was a Fascist.

Wait till Trump realizes he can’t fire him when he rules based on the constitution and not on loyalty.

 

[i am herdman]

The more I read on this, I agree with the court. The practice had gone too far.

 

[herdfan06]

The more I read on this, I agree with the court. The practice had gone too far.

I thought you would have come to this conclusion a number of years ago when this was posted on here.

 

[i am herdman]

I thought you would have come to this conclusion a number of years ago when this was posted on here.

View embedded media

I don't remember that.

 

[From Ashes To Glory 2]

"The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (alterations omitted). If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires. The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day. Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed,not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf