Civil Forfieture. WTF.

[evilmike]

Good news from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:

In a unanimous, 73-page opinion, the court found that although authorities have the right to seize property used in illegal enterprises, they must prove that the owner not only was aware of the illegal activity but also had agreed to it. The court also found that property seizures may breach the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines if the seizure is “grossly disproportional” to the underlying offense.​

(Philly.com)​

 

[PatrThom]

Yes, keep it up, let's see more people wake up to the idea.

--Patrick

 

[Eriol]

It's Baaaaaaaaaacccckkkk!!!!!

Time: Jeff Sessions Wants Cops to Seize More Money From Suspected Criminals
Canadian Reporting on it: US restoring asset seizures - with safeguards

F'n hell. I think the "safeguards" are a load of crap. This whole thing is a load of crap. Seize evidence at time of arrest. It's evidence until conviction. If the charges are dropped (or never filed within 48 hours, or whatever the requirement is), anything not by definition illegal (ie: drugs are still confiscated) is returned. FULL STOP.

If you read comments below articles on various sites, there is nobody that wants this, no matter how right or left-wing. This is apparently cops-only that want their funding, or something.


Any efforts to get this thing ENTIRELY thrown out via SCOTUS or something? This seems like a very open-and-shut good case for the constitutional literalists to get a win that the public LIKES.

 

[blotsfan]

Jeff Sessions is the worst thing trump has done to America.

 

[Krisken]

Jeff Sessions is the worst thing trump has done to America.

I dunno, there is a lot of competition.

 

[PatrThom]

It won't stop until there is a law at the federal level banning it.

--Patrick

 

[DarkAudit]

It won't stop until there is a law at the federal level banning it.

--Patrick

The latest DOJ announcement lets police overrule state laws banning the practice.

I think we have teh Donald's plan for paying off his debts to the Russian banks.

 

[DarkAudit]

You knew this was going to happen, and you still voted to confirm him, asshole.

 

[Eriol]

You knew this was going to happen, and you still voted to confirm him, asshole.

I'm not doubting your statement, I'm just curious where Sessions had said he was going to do this prior to getting confirmed. Was it part of the confirmation hearings? There's a lot of "noise" out there right now, so if you can throw me a link, that'd be awesome.

 

[Denbrought]

I'm not doubting your statement, I'm just curious where Sessions had said he was going to do this prior to getting confirmed. Was it part of the confirmation hearings? There's a lot of "noise" out there right now, so if you can throw me a link, that'd be awesome.

Here's one at random from a fairly large pool: Jeff Sessions Loves Asset Forfeiture. Will Congress Grill Him at His Confirmation Hearing?

If you want more, what I did was use Google News, with search dates of 1/1/2015-3/1/2016 and the search term "Jeff Sessions Asset Forfeiture".

 

[Eriol]

Here's one at random from a fairly large pool: Jeff Sessions Loves Asset Forfeiture. Will Congress Grill Him at His Confirmation Hearing?

If you want more, what I did was use Google News, with search dates of 1/1/2015-3/1/2016 and the search term "Jeff Sessions Asset Forfeiture".

Good enough for me. Thanks man.

Then ya, @DarkAudit I'm totally with you on this. WTF was Rand Paul thinking voting for the guy?

 

[DarkAudit]

Good enough for me. Thanks man.

Then ya, @DarkAudit I'm totally with you on this. WTF was Rand Paul thinking voting for the guy?

It's the same tactic John McCain uses. Spout off to the press about the administration, but then vote straight party line anyway.

 

[PatrThom]

It's the same tactic John McCain uses. Spout off to the press about the administration, but then vote straight party line anyway.

In other words, run out and bark a lot but still come back to the same teat where you've always suckled.

--Patrick

 

[Denbrought]

 

[DarkAudit]

You don't even need to be accused of a crime for them to take your stuff now. Police planned to sell crime victim's car at auction instead of returning it.

 

[Eriol]

You don't even need to be accused of a crime for them to take your stuff now. Police planned to sell crime victim's car at auction instead of returning it.

They even violated their own written policies on this one. Yikes.

 

[DarkAudit]

They even violated their own written policies on this one. Yikes.

It was a Crown Vic. Maybe they wanted it for themselves.

 

[GasBandit]

It's Philadelphia. The only place more corrupt in the US that I can think of would be Chicago. It doesn't surprise me at all that they violated their own already-unacceptable policies. Why any sane person lives there, I'll never understand.

 

[Tress]

It's Philadelphia. The only place more corrupt in the US that I can think of would be Chicago. It doesn't surprise me at all that they violated their own already-unacceptable policies. Why any sane person lives there, I'll never understand.

...except for the fact that it's actually Colorado.

 

[GasBandit]

...except for the fact that it's actually Colorado.

Ah, I thought the link was about the same story as the tweet.

 

[Tress]

Ah, I thought the link was about the same story as the tweet.

You should read the linked story. It's even more amazingly stupid than the tweet.

 

[GasBandit]

You should read the linked story. It's even more amazingly stupid than the tweet.

Sadly, having experienced Colorado bureaucracy, I don't find that beyond credulity either. There's a lot of authority figures who think a WHOLE lot of themselves.

 

[Dave]

Police: We sent her a letter telling her that her car could be picked up. She didn't do it so we charged fees until the only way to recoup those fees was to sell it.
News Reporter: Why was the letter dated on the day that we contacted you and not the date you said it was sent?
Police: Uh...reasons.

 

[Gruebeard]

It's not just that stupid. Even if they had sent that letter when tbey said they did, they gave her at most 3 days to respond before adding the car to their auction.

And what the fuck are they even doing impounding the car? Shit, they ought to be returning the car to her door.

 

[PatrThom]

what the fuck are they even doing impounding the car? Shit, they ought to be returning the car to her door.

They thought maybe it was a victim of Studebaker Syndrome. You know, like Patty Hearse.

--Patrick

 

[DarkAudit]

Federal court finds Albuquerque asset forfeiture law unconstitutional violation of due process, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[PatrThom]

Federal court finds Albuquerque asset forfeiture law unconstitutional violation of due process, innocent until proven guilty.

“In what is surely unrelated news, citations for civil infractions are expected to more than triple*”

—Patrick
*This doesn’t actually appear anywhere in the article, but I’d be curious to see if anyone will keep track just to see if anything like this actually happens.

 

[@Li3n]

Federal court finds Albuquerque asset forfeiture law unconstitutional violation of due process, innocent until proven guilty.

But i thought they whre already only keping it after thhey proved the money was guilty...

 

[PatrThom]

But i thought they whre already only keping it after thhey proved the money was guilty...

No, they were keeping it after the defendant failed to prove it was innocent. There’s a difference. A BIG one.

—Patrick

 

[@Li3n]

No, they were keeping it after the defendant failed to prove it was innocent. There’s a difference. A BIG one.

—Patrick

That's not supposed to be true though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency#Dissenting_opinion

But any way, the idea of suing property is is stupid, and that's what i was getting at...

 

[PatrThom]

the idea of suing property is is stupid, and that's what i was getting at...

I agree wholeheartedly, but they may need to be careful, because if they enter a precedent that property may not be held guilty/innocent as regards any crime, then they will also no longer be able to make the claim that guns are intrinsically “evil...”

—Patrick

 

[@Li3n]

I agree wholeheartedly, but they may need to be careful, because if they enter a precedent that property may not be held guilty/innocent as regards any crime, then they will also no longer be able to make the claim that guns are intrinsically “evil...”

—Patrick

I don't think anyone tried to sue guns yet... so i think we're fine.

 

[Eriol]

I don't think anyone tried to sue guns yet... so i think we're fine.

Given the number of "odd" things that have been before courts, I don't think it's ridiculous to think that may happen.

 

[PatrThom]

Good news from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:

In a unanimous, 73-page opinion, the court found that although authorities have the right to seize property used in illegal enterprises, they must prove that the owner not only was aware of the illegal activity but also had agreed to it. The court also found that property seizures may breach the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines if the seizure is “grossly disproportional” to the underlying offense.​

(Philly.com)​

The SCOTUS has now UNANIMOUSLY affirmed that 8th Amendment protections are not limited solely to federal actions, they also apply to States under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
State (and also presumably city) governments which indiscriminately vacuum up assets wholesale may now be opening themselves up to the possibility of being sued under the 8th Amendment if their seizure is shown to be "unreasonable."

--Patrick

 

[Krisken]

UNANIMOUS. I feel like that should be pointed out.