Civil Forfieture. WTF.

UNANIMOUS. I feel like that should be pointed out.
Also nice of Roberts to assign this opinion to RBG, since it's likely to be a very important/lasting case to have in your legacy.

On the not so bright side, Thomas' (per his concurrence) would've limited this protection to U.S. citizens. Weirdo gonna weird, as usual.
 
Also nice of Roberts to assign this opinion to RBG, since it's likely to be a very important/lasting case to have in your legacy.

On the not so bright side, Thomas' (per his concurrence) would've limited this protection to U.S. citizens. Weirdo gonna weird, as usual.
Did the weird alien on the court write something about that?
 
Oh please, Den, like you haven't considered Thomas might be an alien invader from outer space.
Oh, yes. I was thinking you were talking about a different justice, since I was already specifically mentioning him.

His opinions on jurisprudence truly are out of this world.
 


(Link to threadreader unfURL of entire thread here)

I always thought that CAF was something done mainly to confiscate large sums or big-ticket items, didn't realize it was also used to treat poor people like wandering ATM NPCs.

--Patrick
 
I can’t believe that this can happen. I also am somewhat shocked that someone would travel with that much cash, but that shouldn’t allow this to happen.

I’m glad he got his money back. I fear that his is a rare win.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
At least somewhat related:


Cops destroy stolen goods rather than have to go through the difficulty of returning it to the owners, or account for anything valuable.
 
United States v. Place (1983) states: “Where law enforcement authorities have probable cause to believe that a container holds contraband or evidence of a crime, but have not secured a warrant, the Court has interpreted the [Fourth] Amendment to permit seizure of the property, pending issuance of a warrant to examine its contents, if the exigencies of the circumstances demand it..."
Technically not "forfeiture" and no doubt framed as "We are doing this to preserve evidence that might be lost if the car's owner were allowed to continue to operate it," but wouldn't just putting some kind of sticker on the driver's-side window saying, "Hey, we think your vehicle may have witnessed a crime. Please contact us if you agree to participate in the investigation" [Emphasis mine] be the proper way to do this?

--Patrick
 
Last edited:

Technically not "forfeiture" and no doubt framed as "We are doing this to preserve evidence that might be lost if the car's owner were allowed to continue to operate it," but wouldn't just putting some kind of sticker on the driver's-side window saying, "Hey, we think your vehicle may have witnessed a crime. Please contact us if you agree to participate in the investigation" [Emphasis mine] be the proper way to do this?

--Patrick
We live in a police state. The public will be given no consideration and the police will be given every consideration. The cop outside shoulda told you when he gave you a stop and frisk.
 
Top