"agencies in New York and California tended to take in the highest sums, according to the Institute for Justice."
On December 12, 2018, the New York Times reported in a story for California Today about comments made by the Chief Justice of California Supreme Court, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, in her annual state-of-the-judiciary briefing.
"In her remarks, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye spoke about a new generation of judges who embodied what she described as California values. She defined the California ethos as 'underdog centric' and criticized the federal immigration authorities for making arrests in courthouses."
I would speculate that those agencies in California confiscating the largest sums were taking them from poor people who could not afford lawyers to defend themselves against this pervasive practice.
It was not the "underdog centric" California Supreme Court that brought an end to this practice. It was the unanimous United States Supreme Court that brought an end to this brutish practice in California.
Talk is cheap, Chief Justice CANTIL-SAKAUYE. And, actions speak louder than mere words. Finally, a higher judiciary authority, the U. S. Supreme Court, has brought an end to this unconstitutional government practice in California.
1
This is a long overdue ruling, but it must go further. This corrupt system is, essentially, "for profit" law enforcement, and it has created a very slippery slope, indeed. There are even more horrible examples; one even leading to a murder by officers from multiple agencies, due to a valuable and targeted piece of real estate, and a mistaken raid of an innocent family. Google the Ventura County CA "Don Scott" case from years ago, where an honorable and courageous local District Attorney whose office investigated, reported and criticized the law enforcement actions; and paid for his courage politically, with a loss of his political prospects.
1
Are the end times coming?
9-0 vote for a very logical decision. Wow.
If property is to be forfeited, it should come after conviction and show that it is proportional to the crime.
Thank you, justices!
2
The article does not forthrightly condemn the police practices, which are used not to finance needed operations, but clearly and directly to benefit the police who abscond with the cars. Attend a local auction of PD thefts and you will see that the cops have already taken all the good ones-- for themselves...
1
So what's defined as an "excessive" fine?
1
Hmmmm....where are all the virulent Justice Thomas haters today? It seems kind of empty here...
1
Was the forfeiture law a deterrent to criminal activity or not? Knowing you will lose personal property as well as your freedom is the risk you take when you commit a crime.
@Daphne I am not opposed to the forfeiture of personal property if, and only if, the owner is convicted of criminal behavior and the property was used in connection with the criminal activity. However, we supposedly live in a system where innocence is presumed until conviction. Most civil forfeiture cases turn this on its head, requiring the person whose assets are seized to prove innocence in order to get them back.
2
Hooray John Oliver!
October 15, 2014 Last Week Tonight brought the practice of civil forfeiture to the masses. Talk about abuse of power! Glad to see that RBG is back and that she thought that the decision was an easy one. Harder ones heading their way.
1
Civil forfeiture can be a good thing in some cases, particularly instances like financial crimes were jail time is rarely given. But it must be based on criminal proceedings. Having the police fund themselves or the government is a dangerous road to go down. I believe that is what was happening in Ferguson, Missouri with the riots. The police were tasked with creating summons and warrant revenue to stay in existence due to financial mismanagement by politicians. It created serious community problems and injustices.
2
It is a piece of good news for all people inhabiting America. If the police confiscate the citizen's private property unfairly and improperly, it could pose more and more bad impact on the entire police authority. Besides, the term, civil forfeiture, should be banned with conditions in my opinions. Of course, it ought to be discussed with the majority of people and the governors. Anyway, the decision made by the supreme court is a bright beginning.
2
Its about time the court put an end to this insanity. The civil forfeiture laws have allowed the law enforcement organizations to become the most horrific thieves this nation has ever suffered.
4
Worse than politicians?
I wonder how this ruling will affect jury's awards of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to people harmed by products. Can breaking the back of a corporation and putting them into bankruptcy be considered "excessive"? Does the 14th Amendment apply to corporations as well?
1
@Alan Klein
What article did you read? This article is about civil forfeiture -- when police seize property based on suspicion of a crime without charging a person -- just seizing their property. I've never heard of a jury verdict putting a corporation into bankruptcy -- they usually have insurance that covers such things.
1
About time the court took steps to curb what has become the criminalization of the police. Next step is to eliminate civil forfeiture except where actually a part of a convicted criminal act, and to criminalize crooked police who are de facto thieves. Yet another example of the corruption of America.
7
I thought trumps gop were just avaricious self serving grifters wrecking the country for their own ends.
Now it is clear they are simply behaving in accordance with the ethics of civil forfeiture.
The White House is being used for crime. So the potus can claim it as forfeit. Simple.
Once trump shuts down all but fox news there will be nobody to tell the tale of disproportionate constitutionally sponsored theft beyond the value of the crime.
This ruling will be overturned by a committee of climate change deniers, acting in secret session behind closed doors at Mar El Lago served cooling drinks by illegal immigrants.
Then in the land of the free, any person who steals a cookie can have their house taken in compensation.
That presumably will be how trump swipes the land to build his beautiful wall, slatted screen or asylum seekers please keep out police cordon tape barrier.
This from what claims to be a sophisticated progressive democracy?
When I look through the comments page I always keep an eye out for someone posting about Trump on an article that has nothing to do with him. Congratulations. 3 postings in and I found it. It’s all about Donald Trump, just the way he likes it.
1
@Chris
I loved J Anders comment and the connections kindly given in various comments to the origins of this extraordinary behaviour in confederate states.
Its all about the gop and their ingrained rascist persecution.
Given the stranglehold of he who must not be named, gop and supreme court on your democracy, what chance of any reform to this system apart from this judgement to temper it a little bit.
9-0 wow. Can’t wait to see the same score when the Supremes decide on eminent domain cases coming it’s way.
4
Anything to end this sickening practice. Civil forfeiture is un-American. Police and local prosecutors deciding what a penalty will be??? How about we go back to due process. Innocent until proven guilty is the way to go. Once determined to be guilty the punishment is weighed and designed to fit the crime. Expediency is no replacement for justice.
8
Incredible reference to the "Surprise Police Department" in an article about police seizing property. Very well done by the writers. Surprise! We're taking all your stuff.
3
I'm glad to see the SCOTUS got this right. The fourth through the eighth amendment all come into play here. I am not sure how the 14th, a Reconstruction amendment guarantying former slaves citizenship is involved though. Now then, how about returning or compensating all those people whose rights we're violated?
2
Finally. This abuse of power has gone on for many, many decades. Why does justice in this country take so long? And, let's wait and see if the police actually obey (the Court has no real enforcement capability).
3
About time, what took so long for this obvious abuse of police authority to be corrected. 9-0... every SCOTUS Justice agreed, very rare, but also very telling. This marks the beginning of actual checks and balances on police departments. What's next, maybe actually holding police accountable for their abuses.
3
Civil forfeitures should only occur at the time of conviction and sentencing as determined by the judge. All seized assets should go only to the government general revenues.
It reminds me of the crooked sheriff of Nottingham stealing from the peasants so the King could go off on a Crusade to the middle east. If the United States had not engaged in foolish wars in the last 50 years look at the many many trillions of dollars that would be available to properly outfit the police,repair bridges and other public works. The poor people at the bottom get kicked in the face again. In Canada there is a principle that says justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. I tell you that if the police stole from me then I would look for my pound of flesh and I am sure that is what often happens and the cycle of revenge and retaliation continues.
5
Hypothetical: My car is hi-jacked and taken at gun point. I report this to the police and am, therefore, aware that my property is being used in connection with a crime. In this scenario, by a strict interpretation of civil forfeiture, the police have the legal authority to seize ownership of the vehicle? Lately, it seems that we are literally paying every level of government to steal from us. At least the first thief didn't take taxes as well as my car.
3
Civil Forfeiture is just another form of theft. It’s just that the crooks are the guys in blue with the badges who want to enrich themselves.
2
This is one of those small, long-overdue, and always-important steps by which our States, which once were independent republics with no compulsion to protect equality or fairness under the law, are forced to subordinate their power to a common federal standard of respect for human rights and freedom.
It only happened because we fought a Civil War that made the protection of fundamental rights the responsibility of the Federal Government, under the 14th Amendment.
4
For over 30 years I've argued, complained, and contributed money to fighting the proposition that it's "constitutional" to simply steal a convenience store owners cash deposits, or money from a black kid who's on a train to LA, for no other reason than they look like they might be up to no good.
What a farce! The Supreme Court only acts, once the rapacious abuse of the constitution becomes so utterly absurd that even the cops can't do it with a straight face anymore.
I'm supposed to be impressed, by this farce of a court? Nice try, but the government is illegitimate, and everyone knows it's a lie.
Maybe people don't think too much about how the court took until 1954 to decide that maybe school segregation was unconstitutional. Or until just a few years ago to decide that planting a GPS on somebody's car required a warrant. They'll let the abuses roll so long as they can, while they pretend we actually have a constitution.
3
Civil Forfeiture has turned every policeman into a potential highway robber and has made "legal" corruption highly profitable. It has also undermined the citizen's trust in our law enforcement agencies.
It is so bad in some states that every time you're pulled over you have no way on knowing whether everything you have will be stolen from you on some officer's whim.
The ruling didn't go near far enough but at least they admitted there is a problem. How bad it has to get before it's outlawed entirely is unknown but hopefully it will be eventually. but until then it's impossible to trust any policeman not to be a thief.
3
These seizures would not be necessary it the politicians who control budgets would adequately fund the police and prosecutors.
It's an obvious red flag when 20 percent of your budget comes from forfeiture proceeds.
The only question that I have is why did it take SCOTUS so long to get here?
6
Did anyone else’s eyebrows pop up when they read this quote from the majority opinion?
“Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”
Call me crazy, but I read that as foreshadowing from a 9-0 court in a time when the Executive has stated it’s intention to make it easier for politicians to win judgments in libel cases.
In a lot of ways, I find this decision — and the unanimity with which it was delivered — very encouraging.
6
Not a ruling I would have expected with the general deference to so-called law and order, and certainly not by a 9-0 vote.
2
Has civil forfeiture ever been used to seize the property of tax evaders - their offices, homes, computers, private jets, country club memberships, etc.?
20
While this is a small step, it is a step in the right direction.
Despite what a lot of people claimed and screamed about, the studies formailed under President Obama did NOT say that all police and all Southern judges were bad.
But the statistics gathered indicated that in some counties and parishes, in mostly Southern states, they relied on both the initial fines and then the fines for not paying that debt to finance their "needs" without raising taxes.
And there are strong indications that a very small part of the police and courts across the country would actually ticket or arrest Blacks and legal Hispanics more so than ... locals ... for things like a burnt out brake light, and that the result was that their lives were much more severely punished.
This is based on my recollections of a series of articles in the NYT a few years ago. I suggest you find them and read.
4
It's about time. In some places, Oklahoma in particular the police have become greedy and grab anything they want just on an accusation.
6
I think any normal person reading the Bill of Rights would conclude that Civil Forfeiture is unconstitutional.
From billofrightsinstitute.org
The Fourth Amendment declares that citizens have a right to “their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and that no warrants may be issued without a statement of probable cause “particularly describing…things to be seized.” The Fifth Amendment reiterates that accused criminals shall not be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Sixth Amendment ensures that people accused of crimes must be “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,” and the Eighth Amendment forbids the government to impose “excessive fines” or “cruel and unusual punishments.”
It has, however been deemed legal several times by the Supreme Court and I guess today's decision does the same by implication.
The beauty of the Constitution is in it's concise clarity. I guess it takes a exceptional judicial mind to twist its meaning this far.
5
Now if they would kindly rule on the Civil forfeiture that effects millions more people.
That law is used to rob 'n steal without conviction.
Then people wonder why the gang in blue are distrusted and disliked.
6
"In Philadelphia, forfeiture proceeds once accounted for 20 percent of prosecutors’ budget, while agencies in New York and California tended to take in the highest sums, according to the Institute for Justice."
Blue city and blue states.
As an independent, I can sometimes see why Republicans are wary of high tax areas. The more money the beast gets, sometimes the more it wants. Got to fund those union pensions somehow.
3
@A Faerber
How exactly do civil asset forfeitures correlate with high tax areas?
What's the connection between seizures by police and the
funding of union pensions, other than perhaps the pensions of police officers (who, as a group, I'm guessing you support wholeheartedly)?
Oh, and by the way, Pennsylvania is not a blue state.
2
I am glad it was 9-0 - or at least it may minimize persistent belief that SCOTUS is ideologically and fatally split.
These Justices can agree with one another when pure law and it's applications are involved.
Mr Lincoln said it best "a lawyer will argue law if it favors his client, if not the law but facts - he will argue the facts. If neither, he pounds the table. "
In this case, there was no pounding the table.
I wish we had been told some history behind these forfeiture laws - at least going back to Anglo Saxon times.
I also note that in a scheme of things - what is reported here as total forfeitures - significant perhaps to who lost - but hardly big sums.
2
It amazes me how many people fail to understand what this decision actually was about. It was NOT about civil asset forfeiture - unfortunately - but rather about excessive fines and whether the 8th Amendment applies to the states, something that had not been previously adjudicated by the Court.
In short, the Court decided: 1) whether the 8th Amendment and its protection against excessive fines and penalties applies to the states (it does); 2) whether the civil forfeiture in this particular CRIMINAL case constituted a fine (it did; the owner had been convicted of a felony, and was sentenced to six years in prison, all suspended), and; 3) whether the fine was excessive (it didn't decide, but rather remanded the case to the state while noting that the value of the asset was more than four times the state's maximum fine for the crime of which the owner was convicted, and the original state trial judge had founded it excessive).
That's it, nothing more. Civil asset forfeiture is alive today and only slightly less well than it was yesterday.
13
"Law enforcement agencies have resisted efforts to curtail civil forfeiture, saying they rely on the proceeds for sorely needed equipment."
Rationalizing the brazenly unconstitutional seizure of private property, before its owner has been convicted of any crime whatsoever ... on the basis of budget shortfalls? This is far beyond the pale.
While I'm heartened to see a unanimous verdict emanate from a court that's typically divided, I only wish it had gone further and outlawed civil forfeitures in their entirety. Rooting the decision in a subjective determination of what qualifies as "excessive" still leaves a slippery-slope argument open in the matter, one open to the whims of law enforcement personnel employing the practice for reasons having little to do with justice under the law. (Such as budget shortfalls.)
11
Now if we could penalise law enforcement for extracting excessive fines. Perhaps reverse forfeiture until the police finally begin to realise that it is they who serve us and not the other way around.
3
Easy to stop but given government at all levels is corrupt and out of control it won’t. Simple if a court finds a jurisdictions civil forfeiture was excessive prohibit any civil forfeiture activity for ten years and criminally prosecute those who authorized it with a ten year minimum sentence if found guilty. Since that won’t happen just engage in jury nullification if placed on a criminal jury and vote not guilty. The system can change only if we have the backbone to change it
3
Constitutional merits aside, it's bracing to witness how courts, legislatures, voters, and so many commenters fall all over themselves to worship the holding of private real property.
They could try requiring proof of use in connection with a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, with culpable knowledge or conduct of the owner and a maximum ratio of fine to value below 4 to 1.
3
If law enforcement agencies need civil forfeiture to get sorely needed equipment, then they are at odds with the governing bodies that fund them.
Many teachers say they are under-funded too, but because cops have guns and badges, they apparently get to steal what they think they need?
HA! Maybe that's an argument for arming teachers!
4
As usual the Court did not go far enough. It's a hideous practice and profoundly abusive and will not stop with this ruling. It must be banned entirely or we will see no change at all. I begin to wonder if we will ever demand that police departments be accountable for what they do, whether it is excessive use of force or outrageous forfeitures, both of which are essentially the same as mob protection rackets. I am not holding my breath.
6
It's about time civil forfeiture got some attention. It's nothing but theft, presumption of guilt, and state sanctioned corruption. LOTS of restitution is in order.
5
Strange - no one on the Court mentioned this clause from the 5th Amendment:
....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....
Seems pretty obvious to me, but then, I don't have a law degree.
4
"Sorely needed equipment?" The police force in my remarkably non violent community in Massachusetts has enough firepower to successfully invade and occupy a small soveriegn.
6
Reading much if this commentary, one would think the US Supreme Court in this case upheld confiscation of personal property! Leave it to NYT readers to respond with anger even when the courts agree with them. Flame away ye perpetually disgruntled...
1
It’s not right, even the Supreme Court agrees. But cops are gonna still do it. Does anybody still wonder why cops have no credibility? I use cops, because I am not implicating all law enforcement officers. Just those that participate in this abuse of power.
2
Moral Ruling. Justice and Righteousness Prevail.
Nice to see something Left and Right can agree upon.
1
Will victims of this stealing receive full compensation for all harms, and all perpetrators the just penalties?
We're all entitled to certain rights. The violations by the cops involve "powerism" -- the powerful government against its weak victims. Hence, the guilty deserve much harsher penalties for powerism. Who's going to apply them? Government or justice, which do you choose?
In reality, they are impossible to reconcile.
5
oh wow, so the eighth amendment isn't dead after all. Maybe we can review our barbaric incarceration policies now?
6
Abusive police conduct in 'raising monies' for their own use without due process ?
Naaah....it never happens. This is America.
Yeah, right !
4
Never trust a cop; never trust a prosecutor.
5
Wow. So what sort of society do you want to live?
I want to live in a constitutionally governed society with practical limits on the exercise of sovereign power.
It is reasonable to have a distrust of persons exercising authority. That’s why the burden of proof in prosecutions is so high (beyond a reasonable doubt) and the accused is entitled to a trial by a jury of one’s peers.
History is full of reminders of the excesses of power. Anne Frank was arrested by “law enforcement” and sent to Bergen-Belsen. Akeksandr Solzhenitsyn noted that in order for evil to occur on a mass scale the perpetrators must first convince themselves of their moral righteousness in exercising a lawful duty.
In the previous century it has been estimated that individual criminal acts worldwide may account for as many as 8 million murders, whereas those murdered by governmental authority (not including acts of war) likely exceed 80 million.
Yes, the bitterness of history shows we should not trust cops and prosecutors.
3
We will take all the wins we can. The article in the Louisiana Times was very eye opening. I hope peo people who have been wrongly accused get their stuff back.
2
The kind of abuse under civil forfeiture blurs the line between law enforcement and law breakers (extortion). Afterall, mafia and local gangs have preyed on people unable to defend themselves and taken their stuff. Sounds like civil forfeiture to me as the vast majority of people who are victims of civil forfeiture are unable to defend themselves.
Supreme court with 9-0 has take a very late step but in the right direction. thank you.
21
@A Common Man
Kavanaugh's conservative court is a travesty and -- wait a minute.
1
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and so far the sky hasn’t fallen. On the contrary. Drug use decreased and so did HIV and hepatitis infection rates, deaths from overdose, drug-related crime, and overall incarceration rates. If it’s not against the law, you can’t seize property as punishment. USA, are you listening? No, of course you aren’t.
15
@Ed It will never happen in the US. The prison system here is a big business. The police are a strong voting block for Republicans. They need the tough on crime vote. They need the cop vote. Decriminalizing drugs and eliminating bogus car stops would hurt the Police and the Prison Industrial Complex.
1
Huh. Interesting. Are you arguing that all drugs are safe and should be “legal”? 17,000 died in the US from very legal prescription opiates in 2017. Again — these were 17k deaths from LEGAL drug overdoses.
2
This is another case of legal thievery. It's a term my dad adopted after witnessing many injustices by lawyers in the home building industry. Snidely Whiplash always came to mind.
10
"Civil asset forfeiture" is a euphemism for highway robbery. Yet more evidence that the U.S. is a police state and its Constitution isn't worth the parchment it's written on.
19
Great news!
Shortly after "civil forfeiture" became the law of the land, a friend of mine was notified there was a drug dealer operating in the 6-unit apartment building she was managing for her husband and his brother. The building had been built by their grandfather in the 1920's and had never left the family's hands. It was in what had become a low-income neighborhood. The police would not disclose which tenant was suspected and provided no help whatsoever to the property owners. My friend was unable to determine which tenant was suspected on her own. Legally, she could not evict anyone on the basis of suspicion. The police knew this. Ultimately they seized the property under civil forfeiture. The culprit was an elderly woman who was making very small drug transactions. She was the only tenant who consistently made her rent payments on time. The goal from the very beginning was to gain possession of the building. A developer who had repeatedly expressed interest in the building before the seizure and who had some sway with the city, ended up taking possession. This was an egregious abuse of power, and we all suspect the woman at the center of the situation was planted or bribed. She was never charged.
This marked the beginning of my distrust of the local police department, which continues to this day. No law enforcement agency should have the right to seize private property without a conviction, and even then, judicial oversight must be employed.
237
Your story is the most egregious and outrageous example of this legal-stealing.
And the fact that it wasn't even just a greedy and slovenly police chief, but that there was clearly a complex conspiracy involved to steal one persons property to transfer to another person is just jaw-dropping to me. I am not naive, but this is incredible.
It's likely that there was also bribery involved on the part of the developer and police department.
My heart goes out to you and your family.
It's absolutely breathtaking that it has taken this long for something so plainly unAmerican to come before the Supreme Court.
26
@Mrs Shapiro,
With all due respect, how can the police seize YOUR Friend's husband's property because of the actions of a tenant who is just renting an apartment?
She rents an apartment and does not own even one of the 6 apartments in the building. How could police seize the entire property anyway? It was owned by a person and the police would have to initiate a court case to justify ownership of the property and would have to gain possession of the deed and all relevant things required to change ownership from the original owners to the Police.
They can't just Seize a building full of tenants and by that action now own it.
@Loomy Well, actually, they can. That is the point of the law suit.
19
It’s about time! Forfeiture has been a financial boon for municipalities large and small. Of course the argument is that it’s needed for new equipment, etc. Didn’t you ever wonder how some of those small towns have such top notch police cruisers and fire fighting equipment? It isn’t through property taxes in a town of 800. It is a serious problem and needs to be abolished.
16
This was a minor and very narrow victory based upon the application of the Constitution to an admittedly guilty criminal defendant. It has absolutely no application to the civil forfeiture issue that does not require probable cause, much less a criminal conviction. And by tying it to the underlying matter of excessive fines, it never will.
10
@From Where I Sit It's astounding how few people seem to understand this.
1
It is an egregious abuse of power for the state to enjoy the opportunity of what amounts to legalized theft. It is a clear conflict of interest for the agency that confiscates to then utilize that same revenue. Now I hope in light of this decision we might next see limitations on the declaration of eminent domain which as also much too lightly taken even in the case of for profit business.
7
Curious as to why seizing private property in this way does not run foul of the 5th Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Any insights?
15
Agree. Where is this exception carved out?
2
I believe the provision you cite from the 5th amendment pertains to civil and administrative matters, and has been applied mot often to cases of imminent domain.
1
Some of the most strident voices against legalization of marijuana in Colorado were the state and local sheriffs/police associations and the state and local DA's associations. They were opposed because of the money they would lose from fines and civil forfeiture, and because they would lose the ability to strong arm some small offenders into becoming informants. We're long past the time where we can trust the police or any law enforcement.
17
@TLibby I totally agree. The corruption in the police ranks starts with car stops. They get away with so many bogus car stops, they falsify the tickets, lie in court and it just escalates from there. It goes unchecked until you get the 20 year police detective in Philadelphia who recently arrested and charged with rape of a male witness. "14 years later some of the accusations are coming to light". Civil Forfeiture is just another way cops cross over under the color of the law.
2
I like the ruling. I also find the ruling ironic.
Timbs succeeded because the fine was 'excessive' in a criminal case against him. If Timbs had never been charged, never been convicted,, just the SUV confiscated,, he likely would have lost.
There are counties in the United States where the amount of cash lost to police, without charges, arrests, or convictions, is legendary. People have become careful of traveling with cash. Not because of criminals,,, because of police civil forfeiture, legalized, criminal enterprise, theft.
9 to 0 I love it. The world is a brighter place.
12
Good, good and good. Forfeiture laws were a joke, manifestly abusive and inherently conflicted. Police with the power to unilaterally take property aren’t the police....they’re a police state. Good for SCOTUS. We needed this.
100
@BCnyc Unfortunately forfeiture laws in general haven't been rescinded; only "excessive" seizures are now outlawed. To state the obvious, "excessive" is a term with ample wiggle room for interpretation.
12
9-0! Very infrequent!! Almost unique these days!!! Reasonable decision of police power!!!!
It complements and provides some balance to the Supremes' eminent domain taking of property in a split decision in Kelo v New London(2005) which headed in the other direction, with some prior, formidable Justices, some of which have retired, and some who are no longer with us!
14
@Quandry Actually the majority of decisions are unanimous, it's just that the split cases tend to be the ones that get the most press.
1
Some issues, such as our civil rights, transcend politics. It is a win for the people, a win for the Constitution, and a win for proper policing.
16
I was presented with a $600.00 fine in OXnard, CA. It must have been mailed to me because i remember being shocked at this egregious amount. I didn't know how to pay for the ticket so I went to the local police station. I asked one of the cops about the fine. He just sarcastically said "Someone has to pay for our retirement". It was a real stretch to come up with that money plus I had to go to Driving School which was quite expensive and some other fees too. I lived in Malibu at the time. I went to ask about fines in Malibu and they were reasonable. So I wondered why a poor town like Oxnard could charge such fines while a rich place like Malibu didn't. Never trusted a cop after that and still do not.
53
@BKC The poor towns need the money more.
1
The only thing bad about this decision is that it took so long to come before the Court.
24
@David
And the fact that they had to overturn a lower court decision that ruled the other way.
6
The importance of this ruling is being over hyped. It does nothing at all to restrict civil forfeiture from citizens who have not been convicted, or even charged, with a crime. Further, states can simply increase the statutory financial penalties for crimes, which would allow them to seize property with greater values from those who have been convicted of a crime. Unless and until SCOTUS rules that seizing property without any legal hearing and requiring citizens to sue to recover said property is illegal, the abuse will continue. Some states have placed partial restrictions on the practice but others will never do so because it is not in their financial interest.
24
@Dav Mar, yes, but if the individual is not charged with a crime she can fight the forfeiture without having to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and then be subject to the adverse inferences allowed in civil litigation when a party asserts that right. Big difference.
3
@Liz - I would add that @Dav Mar fails to note that the state and federal forfeiture statutes already require notice to the property owner, who gets a hearing if she/he requests one.
1
About time. Now watch people complain that "this handcuffs the police." Restraining the police power of the state is the sole reason behind the Bill of Rights.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
28
@Rev. E. M. Camarena, PhD Right. A line like this, "Law enforcement agencies have resisted efforts to curtail civil forfeiture, saying they rely on the proceeds for sorely needed equipment." seems to be saying that Law Enforcement says they need the money so they should be allowed to steal it, crazy.
34
@atwork5 But you see they don't rob the rich so it's OK.
2
The failed war on drug users takes another hit. And, what right has the gov in criminalizing ingesting whatever drug an adult likes? Talk about abuse of power! But even the NY Times took decades to support the legalization of marijuana. Just the facts, Ma'am ("Grey Lady"), and you can skip the discernment. OK, I can live with that! I have my own discernment. A pine bench with you on one end and me on the other, is a good enough college for me.
3
@Radical Inquiry. I believe you can thank Big Pharma for that.
It’s kind of hard to justify the mass imprisonment of small time pushers while letting the government sanctioned (since Medicare and/or Medicaid often paid for them) promotion and sale of addictive opiates.
2
An interesting and welcome decision from a Supreme Court that has not had a criminal defense lawyer among their number since back in 1991, almost thirty years.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
14
And limits on 45 seizing private lands across our southern border?
13
Unjust though many believe the practice may be, takings are completely different than the odious practice of civil forfeiture. Takings are also authorized specifically by the Constitution.
10
@April Kane: That will be an eminent domain case, something Justice Ginsburg already approved of when she and others decided to expand justification for ED from the specific "public use" to the more nebulous concept of "public good." Look into Kelo v. City of New London. One of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
@David. There must be a clear Public benefit for Eminent Domain. A wannabe Emporer’s emergency declaration does not meet that requirement
1
About time for this abuse to end. Ferguson exposed how white supremacist city officials preyed on black citizens for minor traffic and other violations as means of oppression and revenue.
14
Good! Now Americans can drive on the interstate highways in peace.
8
@Paul Unless it becomes an excuse to say they can get into an accident and thus Congress can force them to buy Obamacare under the interstate commerce clause. John Roberts' gonnna need a new basis to rescue SCOTUS care, because the tax basis that was risible in the first place has now been declared unconstitutional by a lower court under the Trump tax reform bill.
1
@Paul Actually, no. The ruling was very narrow and only addressed the issue of civil forfeiture from those convicted of a crime. Police can still stop people and seize assets merely on the suspicion that it is "ill gotten gains". Want the assets back? You will have to file a civil lawsuit against the government agency that seized the assets in an effort to recover them, at you own cost for legal fees.
4
@JOHN
If you want to go the “rugged individualist” route, then scrapping the ACA should include a provision of no free riders at Emergency Rooms.
You want to go without insurance, then you can pay for every life saving procedure that you need, cash on the barrelhead.
5
As long as the people have the right to take everything that Trump owns in payment for his crimes against American and American's, I really don't care about this ruling.
6
I want to be clear about one thing; the public usually elects these sheriffs, these police chiefs or some in the bigger cities they are hired by elected offcials hence, the public is responsible for this mess. No recalls, no firings. they get elected or hired; then re-elected and rehired. The voters are responsible , the voters are greedy too.
8
@lou andrews. I totally agree. We the people have allowed the police to get out of hand. We the people give the cops the benefit of the doubt to often. They harass us, take our money, waste our time and kill unarmed citizens time and again. We to elect people that won't rubber stamp police brutality, thuggery and incompetence.
1
The only question, really, is how did this take so long.
9
Good ruling to stop stealing by the government.
2
Back in the day, a pot dealer I would take busses to business meetings for this reason.
6
@Bello forty years ago I’d carry two kilos in a grocery bag with a loaf of bread on top while riding the bus. Never even got looked at cross eyed it still amuses me
Isn't this--“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” she [Ginsburg] wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”--what Mueller's snipe-hunting crew is up to, e.g., Manafort?
4
Comparing apples and oranges never works as a strategy. Try again.
2
@Alice's Restaurant
Manafort was found guilty in court, and pleaded guilty in another.
Then he violated his cooperation agreement by lying. To get a cooperation agreement, one must give up rights. All admissions can be used against Manafort. Had he cooperated, he would have earned leniency. Instead, he threw it away for Trumputin. He gets what he deserves.
3
In a word: No.
1
Now they should have a close look at seizure via eminent domain laws.
8
@Eric Key
That is something Justice Ginsburg already approved of when she and others decided to expand justification for ED from the specific "public use" to the more nebulous concept of "public good." Look into Kelo v. City of New London. One of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
@Rev. E. M. Camarena, PhD This was exactly the case I was thinking of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Jeff Sessions, that horrendous little gnome, also, particularly loved forfeiture laws and did his little bit to broaden them.
21
How wonderful it is to see that every single SCOTUS justice ruled that the Constitution means EXACTLY what it clearly says. And not a single one made one of those rulings that...well...it's a "living document" (Wink! Wink!). And we're going to let you ignore certain things and rule based on what we WISH it said. Good job, SCOTUS!
3
Long overdue. The corruption and abuse by State and Local law enforcement is disgusting. Using the citizenry, especially passing motorists as a "cash cow"is rife with conflicts of interest. I hope some of those affected will file suit to recover their pilfered property and get damages too.
5
9-0! A great decision! Wonderful! Now lets get the sheriffs who abuse their power!
6
There's one here in my county (Gwinnett) in Georgia that drives a new Charger home at night. A gift of larcenous Civil Forfeiture laws.
It is legal theft by incentivized law enforcement.
2
"As its name suggests, a civil forfeiture does not require a criminal conviction or even criminal charges but only proof that the property at issue was used in connection with a crime."
This is madness. It's like something out of Dickens. I am all for punishing drug dealers but this isn't that. It's legalized theft.
13
@tombo Proof is not required for civil forfeiture, only suspicion. If a citizen (not convicted or even charged with a crime) wants the seized assets returned they must file a civil lawsuit against the responsible agency, at their own legal expense and the agency only needs to prove "with a preponderance of evidence" that the assets were ill gotten gains to keep the assets.
10
@Dav Mar
Yes, it isn't justice. It's madness.
Uh-oh.
Now we'll need to support our police departments through taxes again.
What's next? Eliminating the excessive fines that pay for our courts?
6
A rare 8-1 decision on a practice that has long been abused. This time the court got it right!
2
@WHS
It was 9-0. A concurring opinion that gets to the same conclusion by different reasoning is still concurrent. You cannot have a unanimous 8-1 decision.
1
I am glad for this Supreme Court ruling, but I had an idea for municipalities that I believe would greatly improve our quality of life. I am tired of noise pollution, particularly loud exhausts from motorcycles, cars, and trucks. Most often, these are illegally modified exhaust systems that are disturbing our otherwise quiet neighborhoods. I’m also tired of people with booming stereos passing by my house at night. I want an incentive for police to ticket these obnoxious people. I propose that municipalities allow the police to collect the money for handing out tickets for excessive noise and disturbing the peace. This money should go 100% to the police department for whatever they want. Give the police an incentive to shut these people up and they’ll do it.
4
In this case, do the proceeds of this $42,000 Land Rover (when sold) cover all the expenses incurred from (law enforce and medical costs) the sale of the drugs?
1
Great news! Once again the "conservative" court makes the right decision.
1
Note this, also:
NEVER carry excessive cash with you when driving interstate, particularly on a long distance drive where you might toss fast food wrappers in the back seat or floor. Why? Because the local police can stop you and take the money and the chances of your getting it back are slim to none. Take only the money you need and stop at an ATM if necessary.
If the police see any indication at all that you MIGHT be an drug dealer or transporter, they can use that as an excuse to take your money, right there, on the spot, no hearing or trial or anything. They look to see fast food wrappers in the car, tossed away soda cups, anything that might show you are traveling fast and not stopping. So, I-95 from New York to Florida is a key route for such seizures.
Local police then use this seized money to buy new patrol cars, pepper spray, guns, anything they think they need. There have been many reported cases of innocent people fighting for years to get 10 or 20 thousand returned that they were carrying because they needed to make a downpayment at a new location, etc.
There are a number of ways to avoid this problem. Buy a cashiers' check made out to yourself and refuse to sign it over if the police want to take it. Mail a check ahead to a friend or relative, also made out in your own name. Wire the money to a bank.
Remember, too, the police can't search the trunk without your permission or a warrant and they can't get a warrant without more proof than burger wrappers.
19
@Doug Terry You are correct. The SCOTUS ruling in this case was very narrow and did not in any way address the ongoing and still legal practice of police seizing assets, usually cash, during a traffic stop merely on suspicion that it was ill gotten gains. Even if the citizen is not convicted or even charged with a crime the only recourse is to file a civil lawsuit against the responsible government agency at the citizens legal expense to try to recover the assets. The cost of legal expenses is not recoverable even if the assets are.
9
Long overdue revision of police powers to take the money and run. Unjustifable civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture is going away, finally.
3
I agree with the ruling and welcome it. That said the general tone here is the police mad this up out of whole cloth, wrong. The police were empowered to make these civil forfeitures by the legislatures of the various States.
8
Without getting into the "Thomas thing", congrats to SCOTUS for getting one right! This has been an issue that every layman could see was wrong on face value. Now if we can apply this ruling to civil forfeiture then we will really be getting somewhere!
3
Many states, especially the conservative ones, are effectively thieves. They try to tax anything that moves and regularly take away rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Glad SCOTUS has struck one for the common man.
3
@dmckj This ruling only addresses the amount of civil forfeiture that may be appropriate to seize from a convicted criminal. It has nothing at all to do with the "common man".
10
@Dav Mar
This has nothing to do with being a convicted criminal. Civil asset forfeiture is done regardless of whether a person has been convicted or not. In fact all that is required is a preponderance of evidence that a crime may have been committed and the charges justifying the forfeiture are brought against the property itself.
Simply carrying cash in hand is ample reasons for seizure under CAF laws and since there are seldom any charges brought against the property owner they have no guarantee of legal defense. If they want the propert back they have to pay to go to court to prove it was there’s. If you think this process is in any way conditional on a person actually being convicted, or even charged, with a crime you are mistaken.
2
Excuse me for missing the bandwagon, but selling heroin, as the seller apparently now agrees, is a very, very bad thing that contributes to the destruction of lives and neighborhoods. Taking away the seller's prized possession, which he no doubt used to transport himself and his lethal goods, seems a fitting punishment, and possibly (I'm not crossing my fingers) has some deterrent value. And until this article got published, a Land Rover would have been a nice undercover vehicle. I think I'll save my liberal tears for a worthier cause.
@Jay
As I understand civil forfeiture, if it happened in the front yard of his mother's house (her not knowing), they could confiscate the mother's house because the crime took place on that property. Or if they used his mother's vehicle, they could take that too.
3
@Jay regardless about how you feel about what he sold, he was given a punishment and that is that. It's not lawful to just take some one's possessions. Otherwise if you were speeding they could give you a ticket and then just take your car. Does that seem fair to you?
5
The federal government, and I believe state governments too, fine corporations hundreds of millions of dollars in white collar crime and health care fraud cases. That was the Obama administration Justice Department strategy in its prosecution of companies like AIG and Countrywide Financial after the 2008 financial crisis. Famously, no one went to jail for the massive housing market frauds. It was easier and more remunerative for the government to prove corporate malfeasance and collect a big check than to establish the guilt of individual actors and punish them. I'm sure corporate attorneys will be looking closely at this Supreme Court decision to prepare for the next round of financial scandals.
1
Alas, there is unanimity from all the justices, both liberal and conservative, in protecting individual rights. I never understood the legal rational how civil forfeitures could be added on to criminal fines and/or imprisonments without due process. All Americans win with this decision. Goes to show that the founding fathers were on to something.
3
@Bill Weber "All Americans" do not win with this decision. It only deals with the appropriate amount that may be seized from a convicted criminal. It in no way addresses the general practice of civil forfeiture from citizens who have not been convicted, or even charged, with a crime.
2
In rural Georgia it is possible to see six county police cars lined up along an interstate, waiting for the chance to nab a drug offender. The swag has been used to buy all sorts of toys including powerful vehicles which manage to make their way into the ownership of sheriffs.
This decision short circuits those antics. And maybe, they can put those officers back on the streets and highways and roads to respond to citizen emergencies.
7
@ANN Burns The SCOTUS decision in this case has nothing at all to do with the practice you are referring to, which remains legal in most states. The decision only narrowly dealt with the amount of assets that may be fairly seized from a convicted criminal.
2
Aside from seizing property that is far in excess than the maximum fine for a crime, they often do so when someone has not been convicted or even charged with a crime. It is nothing more than legal theft.
6
Are we sure this isn't just in time to prevent Trump from losing EVERYTHING? I think it is about time, but the timing is suspect.
A unanimous decision in Timbs v Indiana. This overturns the unanimous decision of the Indiana State Supreme Court. All five of the Indiana justices were appointed by Republicans, four of them by former Governors Daniels and Pence. You remember Daniels - as director of Management and Budget he estimated George W. Bush’s coming war in Iraq would cost $50 - $60 billion (off by a factor of twenty, at least). Pence you probably don’t remember for doing much of anything.
4
I contested a good number of forfeiture actions in federal court; very few others would take those cases in the 80s in the E.D.Pa. I came to a strong belief that many times what the government sought for forfeiture was excessive or in the name of a relative or someone with a close personal relationship to a defendant and so was being (wrongfully) used as leverage. Also, the proof required to effect a forfeiture is very low when considered relative to the economic harm that could result therefrom. However, even with all that the federal court system was a much fairer place for one to defend against a forfeiture than the PA state court system in which those defending against a forfeiture could lose by failing to appear after being required to repeatedly appear for no good reason. Homes were taken because parents allowed a child with a drug problem entry thereto. That practice was fortunately ended by a new district attorney for Philadelphia. As to the basis on which the Court decided this case, I find I must agree with Justice Thomas - in the era following the Civil War the Court "stripped" out the privileges or immunities protections from the 14th Amendment in what are referred to as the Civil Rights cases even though a strong case can be made that that was one of the purposes of the 14th Amendment & further neutered it by requiring state action & left no claim for state inaction to protect a state's citizens
2
Does this decision apply to North Carolina’s Unauthorized Substance Tax (Article 2D.105-113.106)?
This tax mandates the State to sell stamps that must be bought and affixed to unauthorized substances intended for sale like marijuana, cocaine, and liquor "not authorized" by the State's ABC Commission. Supposedly, the stamps can be purchased anonymously and do not represent state approval for possessing or selling these items. But, if you are found in possession of any unauthorized substance and have not affixed the appropriate stamp, the state will present you with a bill for the tax they claim you owe. Failure to pay in 48 hours results in a huge penalty. Incarcerated individuals may not receive their tax bill until after their release from prison, by which time compounded interest may bring the amount due to tens of thousands of dollars. If much of their property was confiscated by law enforcement at the time of their arrest, they have nothing to live on after release, let alone sufficient funds to pay the tax owed based on the arresting officers' claim about the nature and quantity of the unauthorized substance.
Most of the revenue collected from this tax goes directly back into the law enforcement agencies that execute the arrests and drug confiscation. So there's little motivation for authorities to change this law.
Tennessee imposed a similar tax in 2005 (modeled closely on North Carolina’s). Courts there have since ruled it to be unconstitutional.
3
I really wonder how much influence this ruling will have. All through the article they talk about this guy who did actually commit a crime (selling $250 worth of drugs) and who had his $42,000 vehicle confiscated. They don't mention the many people who are stopped by the police and found to have cash, or a nice vehicle, and the car and/or cash are seized with the person never being charged with a crime.
Excessive fines and seizures are bad enough. But cash and property are also seized when there is no criminal charge. When that happens it is up to the owner to get an attorney and get the property back.
8
@Aubrey Exactly. I've lost count of the comments that somehow think this SCOTUS ruling has something to do with civil forfeiture in general, it doesn't.
3
Rather than money matters, our supreme court should be more concerned about our citizens placed in prisons because of minor offences relating to use or sales of marijuana.
Some states incarcerate these people for longer periods than others.
Also some states consider this activity as legal.
What a confusing and unfair system !
We seem to be worried about "excessive fines" more than we are are about excessive time in prison.
More evidence that our society's prime interest -is MONEY
over fairness.
3
Of far greater importance than the excessive fines argument is the fact that authorities are using asset forfeiture to take away any wealth from the accused, denying them resources to pay for an effective defense in the matter of the crime in addition to the fact that the publicly financed defenders assigned to indigent defendants are most likely deliberately curtailed by law makers. Quite frankly, the system of Justice in our nation is grossly unjust. I deplore Crime, especially organized that is at the top of the heap, but the system of justice is corrupt as well.
4
Civil forfeiture has long been abused by states and local jurisdictions to the point of corruption. Some celebrated cases involve outright theft. The near-unanimous decision of the SCOTUS on this issue should put an end to this heinous practice once and for all.
3
@William O, Beeman No it does't put an end to civil forfeiture in any way. The decision only narrowly dealt with what may be considered a fair amount to be seized from a convicted criminal.
1
It's about time the Court put a crimp on police abuses. One case after the other, the court of the last 15 years has given cops carte blanche to do what they want regarding innocent civilians. Next up, revoking the "Soverign Immunity" granted and increased by the Court long ago.
3
What's the purpose of the equal protection clause for then? Obviously we learn that the 14th Amendment neutralized state powers in favor of a stronger Federal citizenship. In short, no penalty of any American adjudicature can violate the national constitution's excessive penalty & cruel imprisonment clauses. Would join J. Thomas on this one.
Thank you, SCOTUS! That it was unanimous is a miracle. Law enforcement agencies have been gouging petty offenders for decades - openly acknowledging this is a source of revenue for them. I know because I worked at a sheriff's office in the 1980s and they were pretty darned gleeful about it. Cities got in on the act too. YAY!
4
@Kilroy71 Your joy is premature. This narrow ruling regarding what may be considered a fair amount of assets to seize from a convicted criminal has no wider application at all. Civil Forfeiture is still a thing.
So-called "policing for profit" has been a stain on law enforcement agencies for years, falling disproportionately on lower-income citizens and persons of color. Huge congratulations to The Institute for Justice for bringing this case to the Supreme Court.
3
@Joel Sanders This case had nothing at all to do with "policing for profit", which is still as legal now as it was before the ruling. This case only narrowly dealt with the issue regard what is a fair amount of assets to seize from a convicted criminal. It has no wider implication at all.
1
So this time Thomas agreed with the rest of the justices, but just to be an old contrarian codger so he said he would have gotten to the same conclusion using a different route, a comment and distinction that has no bearing on the ruling and provides no additional clarification for other decisions.
Ohhhhkay. Term limit folks; one term, 18 years. Nobody should be a SC Justice until they're at least 50 years old, which would then let them work through at least 68. It's rare that such large mistakes are made with SC Justices, but as we have seen over the last decade or two, they most certainly happen. There's no need for lifetime appointments.
8
@RS: The Supreme Court operates under the regulation of congress (it's in the constitution, for those who doubt this). Congress can do precisely as you suggest. But the last time congress tried to take action of this sort, FDR was president. They just don't want the responsibility. They prefer to play it safe.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
Seeing that many red states are now using excessive fines as a revenue building tool rather than raising taxes, this makes sense. In this particular case, the drug dealer should have been assessed the $10,000 fine and warned that if he were ever arrested for dealing again, he would be imprisoned for the maximum number of years under the law and the car would THEN be taken to cover the cost of his room and board while in jail.
Now if he had kilos and kilos of heroin in the car, taking the car would have been the right thing to do.
1
I live near Palm Springs in the California desert. A CHP pulled me over for speeding asserting that I had been traveling at 92 miles per hour in a 70 mph zone. He issued me a citation accordingly.
I believed I was actually traveling at 88 mph when the flashing lights appeared but decided against making it an issue as it was only a 3 mph difference.
When I got home I found out that the 3 mph discrepancy was going to cost me big time. 91 mph or above mandates the maximum penalty and makes the driver ineligible for diversion to driver's ed. But that's not all.
The actual bail/fine was $120.....before fees, penalties, and assessments. The final total was about $500. I could have paid it in installments for an additional $50.
I was able to put it on a credit card but not everyone around here is that fortunate. $500. could mean the rent doesn't get paid or other necessities foregone for many families. I live in Imperial County, the poorest in the State.
9
@Rob Vukovic I had the same experience in Indiana. Stopped for doing 55 in a (very badly signposted) 40 limit. I knew I was doing 48 - I like speed but I'm not crazy and 55 would have been crazy on that stretch. I wasn't going to argue for the sake of a few bucks: but when I got the notice in the mail I found that I had been elevated to the next level which was a $140 fine. When I got to my destination my host said: what do you expect? Out of state plates, last day of the month. These guys have quotas to fill.
3
@Rob Vukovic
"I believe I was traveling at 88 mom when the flashing lights appeared..."
The question is what speed were you traveling at prior to the flashing lights appearing. He may have clocked you miles back.
@Rob Vukovic- since it wasn't the Autobahn, and there is a clear speed limit which you violated by a substantial margin, stop complaining. No business going 5.m.p.h. over the limit unless of course you were on your way to the hospital to give birth.
Thomas, as usual has opened up a potentially different approach to this issue. And this at first glance is odd.
The Privileges and Immunities clause has been one of the forgotten sections of our constitution. It's also one with no textual guidance, so judges have to first ask "what are the privileges and immunities of US citizenship?"
Typically they've answered that question with the usual list of federally exercised rights, the right to a passport, to vote in federal elections, etc.
To argue that the right to be free from excessive fines, which seems grounded in another clause of the constitution is a real stretch for a conservative justice who usually advocates a textual interpretation of the constitution.
But there may be more going on here with Thomas. The application of the 8th Amendment, through the 14th has been the cornerstone of substantive due process, a doctrine that Thomas has always opposed because it includes the legal basis for Roe v. Wade.
So at least he's being consistent, albeit in a bizarre way. On the substantive side, hopefully this case will open challenges to a host of civil forfeitures and fines that local law enforcement have turned into their own version of a fire sale when making routine drug arrests.
One of their prize goal was seizing autos, which many officers then bought at auction. Ay least now the statute which authorizes a fine now sets a limit on what a reasonable property seizure might be.
34
@Drspock Justice Thomas's approach is not odd at all; he has consistently been advocating for the demise of the inherently contradictory "substantive due process" doctrine, and he (again) makes a good case for doing so. I am a political liberal/progressive, and the Court's "substantive due process" jurisprudence has protected Americans from states' attempts at depriving citizens of certain fundamental rights I hold dear (freedom of speech, freedom of association, free exercise of religion, marriage equality, sexual freedom, etc.). The problem is that the Court has contrived an illegitimate doctrine in order to do so. There is no such thing as "substantive due process" -- substantive rights and procedural rights are separate matters of law. Justice Thomas's point is that the Court should have, all along, been applying the Bill of Rights to the states through the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, which textually, historically, and as a matter of common sense better supports the notion that no state may enact laws or impose punishments that violate the rights (i.e., "priviliges and immunities") afforded by natural and positive law to the American citizens.
13
I’m just happy RBG wrote this opinion. Get Well Soon!
44
@Mercury S Well, one of her clerks did, but yeah....
1
'. . . one of the privileges'.
What?
2
@Chris Morris as opposed to non-citizens who receive no additional consideration. Immigrants with no protection can lose everything to the authorities with no recourse.
1
@Chris A
I believe a drivers license is a privilege.
This is a constitutional right they are considering.
Holy smokes, it's about time!
22
The question is this: is this guy getting his car back.
16
@Ellen F. Dobson Article states that it goes back to the lower court to determine whether taking the car constituted an "excessive fine".
3
@Ellen F. Dobson- hopefully the original trial judge's ruling will stand. More waste of tax money to redo this whole thing.
@Ellen F. Dobson
If he was using it to travel in to sell/deal drugs then no he shouldn't.
Thank the gods and our Founding Fathers for our federal courts and our Bill of Rights.
23
no. Thanks for the JUDGEMENT!!! It’s all about how it’s interpreted! The same words and laws were present during slavery, but were used to enslave!
So it’s not the writers, but the interpreters, I think!!
today, the more money you have, the more justice you have or the better quality of justice you receive, versus say public defense!
They said everybody is equally under the law. Well, how is public defense equal to private defense? So, perhaps one shouldn’t be too quick to “thank our founding feathers!”
They left Slavery whose consequences are still being dealt with, and there’s unequal justice in spite of the rhetoric of being “equal!” among many problems they bequeathed.
2
"Siding with a small time drug offender"...interesting word choices Mr. Liptak. But that's not what really happened is it? What really happened is that the Supreme Court sided with the US Constitution.
A small point, but not unimportant. Words matter.
204
@Asha Smith
"Words matter?" Visit a courtroom, and learn about "judicial economy." As in, there's not an unlimited amount of time and resources to endless debate everything -- judges will tell you, "get to the point, tick-tock."
For that matter: the "court" did not side. The justices ruled, based on their legal knowledge. Court don't do nothing.
Our neighborhood is a cop neighborhood. Ever notice the growing number of Democrats, such as K. Harris, who tout being "tough on crime?" So they can run higher office, and stay on the taxpayer dime?
In this case, and many others, abuse of process and laws is clearly evident. This is long overdue. This is why politicians have to be watched constantly, like college students on football weekends.
3
Most States Fought against this Ruling.
Guess they will have to raise taxes to get their Extra "Goodies".
Love this decision !
47
Hopefully, this marks the beginning of the end of "policing for profit".
63
@Paul Drake Nope! This ruling has no wider implications beyond a consideration of the amount of assets that may be seized from a convicted criminal, period.
1
Isn't this just stealing by the police to support their pension funds?
57
Thank you, Supreme Court. This needs to be pursued further to prevent states from keeping property belonging to people later adjudged innocent. This is tantamount to theft.
52
Is this ruling to ensure Trump's properties will not be confiscated when he escorted from the Whit House in cuffs?
9
In California one reason we legalized Marijuana was because the Cops were helping themselves to the Stereo Equipment and even the house and property of otherwise legal pot smokers..
21
From the looks of it, this was unanimous decision among the justices.
8
RE: Justice Ginsburg wrote that excessive fines have played a dark role in this nation’s history.
“Following the Civil War,” she wrote, “Southern States enacted Black Codes to subjugate slaves and maintain the prewar racial hierarchy. Among these laws’ provisions were draconian fines for violating broad proscriptions on ‘vagrancy’ and other dubious offenses.”
Leave it to an old limousine liberal to bring up race in a case that has nothing to do with race. Ginsburg has a terrible record on hiring minority clerks. Guess liberals don't like diversity as much as they claim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-bader-ginsburg-can-learn-something-from-brett-kavanaugh/2018/10/15/b8974a86-cd77-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2a5bf8574e64
3
Drug busts, police power abuse, and imprisonment rates of have much to do with race. Perhaps you’re unaware of these facts (source NAACP website, corroborated by law enforcement records):
- African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites.
-African Americans represent 12.5% of illicit drug users, but 29% of those arrested for drug offenses and 33% of those incarcerated in state facilities for drug offenses.
It’s reasonable for RBG to make this point in this context. It’s (at best) uninformed to take issue with her doing so.
4
@Reader In Wash, DC, Odd comment. I believe Ginsburg has the right to reflect on history in her decisions. Just because you object to a particular "racial" context doesn't justify labeling her a "limousine liberal." Perhaps you should examine your own use of identity politics when discussing others.
6
If you knew anything about justice Ginsburg you wouldn’t be so quick to disparage her reasoning and example. What a shame that on one of the few unanimous decisions by the court that should be celebrated by all of us who respect the constitution and the rights that we are granted under it, you would take the time to take a petty partisan shot at her. Smh....
5
The unspoken problem with civil forfeitures is that many police departments use the forfeiture to enrich the Department rather than have a proportional relationship to the crime.
The taking of the property becomes the goal which is a violation of our Constitution. Yes the criminal should be punished but the penalty must fit the crime, not the need of the police department for valuable things not permitted them in their budget.
204
@Al of Boca. That exactly! Up to this decision, the seizure of assets was greatly incentivized by the common practice of using the proceeds to finance police operations, including equipment purchases, salaries and overtime. That created an almost perverse incentive to seize as many assets as possible, vs. as necessary to truly uphold the law and lower overall crime. I am all for taking as much of El Chapo's wealth as possible, but this back door to imposing excess fines on accused, but not even convicted small offenders needed to be plugged.
14
@Al of Boca
With respect, I have to disagree with both your propositions: that there is one problem with civil forfeiture and that the problem is unspoken.
Those of us in the criminal defense bar, along with certain advocacy groups like FAMM and some journalists, have been railing about the problem that you raise for decades. It has not gone unspoken -- just unheeded by those with the power to change it. The problem is not a bug, but a feature. As soon as you create a system in which the people who rule on the forfeiture -- i.e., law enforcement -- get to keep the proceeds of the forfeiture, you are guaranteeing abuse. It is a rare human being who is capable of a disinterested fairness in such circumstances.
Second, this is far from the only problem. As other posters have noted, assets are frequently forfeited in situations where the defendant has been acquitted or never charged in the first place. It is very common for airline passengers traveling with large sums of cash to have their money seized at TSA without any indication of criminal activity at all.
And some states have systems where the burden of proof is on the defendant. In other words, the government doesn't have to prove an illegal source for the asset. The owner has to prove a lack of illegality.
I applaud the Supreme Court decision, but there is still much reform work needed in this area.
40
@Al of Boca Absolutely. Red States love forfeiture; they have no money so cannibalize their people. Ray Sipe
8
Local police and sheriff departments are going to be awfully sad the free money bonanza is now over. It was becoming legalized highway robbery.
A few summers ago I was pulled over in Morgan City, LA, for an "improper lane change" that I didn't commit. I was really pulled over for having long hair and tattoos. After informing me of the spurious lane change accusation, I was immediately ordered out of the car, and three sheriff's deputies, armed to the teeth and dressed for mortal combat, spent the next hour asking me countless times if I had money in the car. They asked me to stand still while they huddled a few feet away trying to come up with the next tactic to scare me with. They insisted that my refusing to consent to a search was reason enough to suspect me of carrying contraband. But what they spent most of the time talking about was whether or not I had money, because that's all they wanted. They finally let me go because they had nothing to hold me for because I refused to consent to a search. I complained to the sheriff's department, the parish president, and the state Attorney General, and received no replies. Police are no longer interested in protecting the rights of citizens -- they are only interested in how much money they can take from you. The 4th Amendment is really the only protection we have to keep police from indiscriminately pulling people over and taking whatever they want. But you have to invoke it because they sure won't do it for you.
102
@Vexations- who hires these cops, these sheriffs? Most are elected by the people, hence the people are responsible by allowing this robbery to go on. Why aren't they fired or recalled? the public is greedy for money too.
4
I wonder if those thugs (who are not worthy of the title "police") were doing this on behalf of the banking-credit complex. Those companies want to replace cash with cash-like imitations that are proprietary to them and not the government or you—and they've already got people to swipe away all of their creepyphone data (because of COURSE they do) with trendy apps and camera-swamped workerless stores. (Reason #39436253 that I'm SO glad that workerless-store builder and creepy-can maker Amazon's given up on New York!)
They can pay the thugs to take your dough, then use THAT as an argument to use their intrusive app! It's evilly smart(phone) of them.
3
@Vexations You, like a majority of commentors, misunderstand the ruling. It only addressed the amount that may fairly be seized from a convicted criminal. It has no wider implications for civil forfeiture in general, which is just as legal now as it was prior to this ruling.
5
I was forced to go through an Orange Traffic Light because
a Semi-Behind wanted to "Make the Light"
as I went through the Traffic Light, it turned Red,
a camera flashed and I received a $ 500 fine three days
later in the Mail.
Will the Supreme Court ruling have an effect on such
fines ?
3
@John Brown
No ... such fines are based on a determination of fact ... that you ran the red light. Depending on how the timing of the camera is set, it may be possible to dispute the charge (e.g., if the timing is set to take a picture as soon as the light turns red, depending on where one is in the intersection in the picture taken it may be possible to argue that the light was orange when the intersection was entered).
4
@John Brown did you exercise your right to contest the charge?
1
Not unless they also asked you to give them your car.
2
The meaning of excessive will roil state and lower courts for the foreseeable future.
Does it mean value equal to or less than the crime? if so can they lien an asset and force the sale? must the states accept a payment plan for fines? or can they imprison you until you pay (despite the fact incarceration impedes most legal income producing activities)?
What if the asset is jointly owned? if one of the owners commits a crime and the other is innocent with no knowledge of the crime, is the innocent 'guilty by association' and their asset seize-eligible?
in general it is good news, but the states will play lots of games with this ruling
9
The man whose car was stolen by Indiana's so-called justices deserves a fitting recompense, which, I submit, should be the personal automobile of every justice and law-enforcement officer who tried to steal his car. There needs to be outrage against out-and-out thievery by public officials, even in Indiana.
20
People commenting on articles in this paper have been none too happy about the composition of the Supreme Court - that is understood. (I, on the other hand, have been delighted.)
I predict this: The current Conservative Supreme Court majority will deliver some welcome - and long overdue - rulings on criminal justice matters that both Conservatives and Progressives can welcome.
Asset forfeiture, plea bargaining, double jeopardy (not giving BOTH State and Federal prosecutors a bite of the apple), the confrontation clause, search and seizure, maybe even jury nullification!
All are ripe for reining in the incredible power of prosecutors.
This is only the beginning.
6
@DennisG Surely you're not the state should get a practice trial and the feds try you again cognizant of the states mistakes?
@DennisG , I sorely hope you are right!
1
@DennisG I certainly hope that you are right.
This whole corrupt stealing of personal property should have been stopped years ago.
14
@Vicki Scott! When enacted as part of the war on drugs, as long as it was applied to the other, it was cool. But when it hits closer to home, now that's a problem
one should call this egregious action by the states by its proper name,legal extortion
14
"Justice Ginsburg wrote that excessive fines have played a dark role in this nation’s history"
The great news here is "RBG" is back. Thank you Justice Ginsburg for your service to our country.
15
@cherrylog754 You do realize this was a unanimous judgment from the Court, right? So perhaps we should be thanking all of the justices, not just "RBG."
A step towards a more perfect union.
5
Generally our interests in these matters are far more prosaic, like 42 shots fired thanks to poor training, low IQs and giving badges and weapons to the psychologically unfit. When you employ cowboys, every citizen looks like an Indian. Be that as it may, we take note of the libertarian hue this ruling emerges from and voice again the posit that an armed, occupying force of uniformed, aliens — that is a force that lives OUTSIDE the prison it is paid very well to oppress —armed to the teeth, is the very antithesis of liberty.
5
An end to legalized stealing?
7
Now that is a great ruling. Looks like SCOTUS is finally beginning to recognize Government abuses.
3
The fact that the State of Indiana was unanimously opposed by the US Supreme Court speaks volumes to the corruption that is present in many states.
It is shocking that Indiana would extract far more value from a person than what their own laws allow. If Mr. Timbs had sold his vehicle Indiana could not have demanded $42,000, yet since that value was in the form of a vehicle rather than monetary assets Indiana felt justified in their expropriation.
It is a perversion of economics and law to treat valuable and fungible assets differently based on their form.
13
Mr. Liptak & Editorial staff, perhaps stating that this was a unanimous decision would be important, since your paper has continually presented the case of a irreparably divided court. You've had recent articles implying that divisions are so severe and lopsided that the divisions could create civil unrest. I guess by not stating this decision was unanimous you can somehow preserve your thesis and endear your paper to the liberal fanatics you cater to. Call me cynical but given the quality of your writers (however biased and channeled they be) your failure to note supremes unanimity can't be an oversight and must have been decided upon.
9
@Ace
Good Lord, man, he did say Ginsburg was writing for the eight other justices, didn't he? 8 +1 = 9 = unanimity, right ?
1
Theft by the government through "civil forfeiture" is a rotten violation of property rights. May it dwindle and disappear after this decision, though we can expect a fight.
9
It's frightening to learn of the many ways people have money & property taken from them everyday & under the guise of legal action. We are, especially the average citizen, hunted like prey for our hard earned dollars, whether it is by banks who manipulate our accounts so that they can charge $35 overdraft fees when they state you overdrew your account when you used your debit card to buy a latte, or when your student loan of $20K is now $60K after years of repaying it. One important reason people run from the police is because as soon as they have you in their grips, the meter begins to tick--processing fees upon booking, room & board fees upon jailing, excessive bail, court fees & now that once free public defender is no longer free.
Some years ago, I began reading news articles about police targeting people traveling with substantial cash. A couple of gamblers with their winnings, a woman who was moving out of state, a businessman headed to an auction. How cops knew these people had money was mysterious. (One article mentioned some kind of electronic device police had that could detect cars with cash.) But cops always took the money stating that it was drug money. Yes, you could hire a lawyer & try to get half of it back.
Too often, there is little recourse. The CFPB was created to help us with such matters, but Trump shuttered it. Even with this ruling, I'd advise not traveling with cash.
7
Thomas is right and should his view someday prevail, it would open up many more avenues for the courts to protect citizens from abuse.
In choosing to ignore the 14th amendment guarantee of our “priveleges and immunities” they have effectively repealed a portion of the amendment and largely limited themselves to process rather substance.
1
As i recall, the new standard is based primarily on "intent". Did the perpetrator "intend" to commit any crime? If the perpetrator states forcefully that they did not "intend" to commit a crime, then there is no crime. If there is no crime, then there is no seizure of property, no indictment, no arrest.
Or is that only in cases of emailing classified information, or wiping clean equipment under subpoena?
1
@PaulDF
"Did the perpetrator "intend" to commit any crime? If the perpetrator states forcefully that they did not "intend" to commit a crime, then there is no crime. "
Incorrect ... intent is an element of some crimes, far from all. Many crimes are "per se" offenses ...intent does not matter, only that the prohibited act was done.
@PaulDF
Apparently it does apply to a President who blurts out classified secrets to the Russians he invited into the Oval Office for a cozy private chat.
When I was employed as an FBI agent I was assigned to work with DEA for a period of time. In turn, DEA worked with a number of local police departments. I know from direct personal experience the DEA and local PD’s targeted individuals solely because they wanted to seize the vehicles they were driving especially if the vehicle was paid off. I am happy that SCOTUS has placed some limits on this behavior.
24
Having a badge does not give you the right to steal a person's property. Even if they committed a crime, it makes absolutely no difference. The 4th amendment protects citizens from illegal search and seizure, so one would think this constitutional right should be applied in cases of arrest.
12
I'm glad Mr. Timbs got his $42k Land Rover back but I don't understand this article. The first paragraph seems to assume that grabbing it was an excessive fine while the last paragraph says that question has still to be decided by a lower court. Please explain,, Mr. Liptak.
But glad to see RBG back on the Court. We're going to need her pretty soon when the Court takes up Trump's phony "emergency".
3
@archer717Read the article. The issue in question was whether a limitation on excessive fines applies only to the federal government or also to the states. The Court ruled that it applied to the states as well. Whether or not the seizure was, in fact, an excessive fine is a different question and for a lower court to decide.
6
@archer717
RBG stated categorically that the fine was excessive, guidance to the lower courts to re-decide; which they usually do. (or always? do, not sure).
Some cities, towns, and counties have made a fortune seizing property, often when it was not part of a criminal act. Louisiana is known for this and so are a lot of Southern States. The sheriff in my local county in Georgia seized a $65,000 vehicle and took it to be his own.
25
So, the State of Indiana, or at least the judges on the Indiana Supreme Court, believe(d) that states have a right to impose excessive fines? That seems to be the case. If I were a politician, removing all those judges would be part of my next campaign platform.
6
Civil forfeiture arguably also violates unreasonable search and seizure and due process rights. The arbitrary use of probable cause to seize property very rightly needs to be limited and accountable.
9
This all originally was put in place to seize homes, yachts and aircraft from top drug kingpins, but has been grossly abused down to the street level when law enforcement saw it as a revenue stream.
19
A chance missed - prior to this ruling civil forfeiture could have been used to take guns away from the lawbreakers who exceed the speed limit or commit other traffic violations.
1
@Tibby Elgato So, because you don't like guns you think it would be OK for the government to steal a gun that a person owns legally using the pretext of an unrelated traffic violation? Any particular guns or just the guns of people you don't like? How do you feel about fascism, by the way?
@Tibby Elgato The ruling has nothing at all to do with Civil Forfeiture in general, it is now just as legal as it was prior to the ruling.
1
This is great news.
I learned about civil forfeiture 25 years ago from a court clerk when I served on a grand jury. She told me to take a look at the expensive vehicles parked every day at the north side of the courthouse. They were forfeited cars and trucks that the Assistant DA's drove to work every day.
Forfeiture as practiced has always been a scam.
18
@Jim Hold your horses! This ruling has nothing at all to do with the issue of Civil Forfeiture in general. It narrowly addressed a question re whether the Federal Constitution must apply to certain State practices relating to seizing assets from a convicted criminal, nothing more.
2
This is a good beginning but does not go far enough.
In some states, property, assets, and cash can be seized before convictions, before charges, and even without charges being filed, and not returned, even when charges are dropped or the accused is found innocent.
Victims are forced to sue for return of their property and money.
Will these people find justice and have their assets returned? Will this ruling prevent such seizures in the future?
9
@Mary
"Will these people find justice and have their assets returned? Will this ruling prevent such seizures in the future?"
The ruling creates the legal foundation to address "per-conviction forfeitures." How and whether the courts will build on that foundation remains to be seen.
2
@Dave Unfortunately, the answer to your question is no, this ruling has nothing at all to do with Civil Forfeiture in general. I also must disagree that this ruling creates any legal foundation to address the issue with Civil Forfeiture of assets from citizens neither charged or convicted of a crime. The SCOTUS has ruled that Civil Forfeiture is legal.
1
Good! It's about time the courts curbed what's become a clear abuse by law enforcement. It's sad to me that it would even take a court ruling to curb this... but it seems where ever there's money to be made corruption follows and clouds people's judgement. I wonder if it applies to the baseless cash seizures that are happening to people when they are pulled over while transporting cash.
10
@Michael Your pleasure is premature. This narrow ruling has nothing at all to do with Civil Forfeiture in general. It solely dealt with, primarily, States Rights (or lack thereof) and secondarily with with the question of what may be reasonable for a state to seize from a convicted criminal.
2
It's a start, but this decision doesn't go far enough. It still allows civil forfeiture -- despite our Constitution's promise of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."
How is stealing a car from a drug user (not, mind you, a person receiving a DUI) a reasonable seizure? There's so much awareness about the second amendment being weakened... where's the anger for the poor 4th, which has been gradually restricted for the past 20+ years?
10
@Informer Exactly! You are among the small number of commentors who understand the import of this narrow ruling and that it in no way addresses the issue of Civil Forfeiture in general.
1
Furthermore no forfeiture should be allowed for " so called criminality " no conviction therefore no crime no forfeiture without being proven guilty first.
7
I think that the asset forfeiture crowd will continue pretty much as they have been doing, mostly ignoring this ruling.
I note that Trump has identified federal asset forfeiture funds as one of the un-appropriated sources of funding for his wall. Which is crooked all the way around.
7
@Marvant Duhon They will ignore this ruling insofar as it had nothing to do with Civil Forfeiture in general. It was a narrow ruling dealing with Constitutional issues of Federal vs State laws and the issue of what may be seized from a convicted criminal.
1
This has been a long time coming. The United States loses credibility each time its justice system overreaches and especially when it disproportionately hurts the poor. Funding for police departments coming from fine and forfeitures is turning them from community members to vultures to preditors. It incentivizes terrible policing, and leaves people and families broken. It is about time the Supreme Court intervened.
7
@Adib I'm not sure what you think has been a long time coming?.This narrow SCOTUS ruling had nothing at all to do with the continuing legal practice of Civil Forfeiture in general, which is still just a legal now as it was before this ruling.
1
@Dav Mar Agreed but any relief is welcome. It seems now they have confiscate "not in excess."
1
It's amazing that it took a Supreme Court decision to rein in this manifestly unfair practice.
8
@Becks What manifestly unfair practice are you referring to? This ruling had nothing at all to do with Civil Forfeiture in general, which is still just as legal now as it was before the ruling.
1
Wow, all Justices agreed with the result. All conservative Justices, and all liberal Justices. If these 9 people can agree on something, then maybe all is not lost.
6
Wait, so was Judge Clarence Thomas attempting to say that excessive forfeitures violate a citizen's rights, but not that of a non-citizen? Why would he insist on limiting the ruling to a privilege of "citizens of the united states"? It sounds markedly similar to the draconian fines implemented in the south.
1
This is a first step toward reining in civil forfeiture, which is a cancer on our republic.
The Oklahoma state police make so much money from civil forfeiture, the first question they ask when they pull over a car on the interstate is: "Are you carrying any cash." And then they confiscate on the spot and tell the driver he/she need to file suit if they want their money back.
It's very similar to corrupt police in third world countries who supplement their income by taking bribes and robbing people. That it has been institutionalized in the United States is almost beyond Orwellian.
Let's hope this ruling helps create a legal foundation for further Supreme Court rulings to demolish civil forfeiture.
Forfeiture laws were enacted as a tool for going punishing millionaire drug kingpins for whom criminal prosecution was not feasible. It was never envisioned they would be used to steal cars from low-level pot dealers or take away the homes of grandmothers who have the misfortune of having a grandchild dealing drugs.
33
The Indiana trial court and an intermediate state appellate court have already ruled that the forfeiture was "excessive", while it appears that the Indiana Supreme Court did not reach or contest this issue, basing its reversal on the Eighth Amendment's inapplicability to the states. Why should the Indiana state courts have to decide anew whether the seizure of the subject vehicle was "excessive "? It seems like the State of Indiana is getting another unfair "bite" out of the proverbial apple, and wasting precious governmental resources in the process.
7
My brother was rightly arrested for drug dealing, and the police seized a number of his possessions. However, though they were in his possessions, they were not all his property, and that caused suffering to others. And they leave no way to recover said property.
58
@Grittenhouse Actually, there is a way to attempt to recover property seized under Civil Forfeiture. You have to file a civil lawsuit against the government agency that seized the assets. Even if you recover the assets you cannot recover the legal costs of doing so.
4
Congress and the states should take this ruling even further and legislate that all proceeds of lawful forfeitures must be paid to the national/state treasury. Allowing them to be retained by local law enforcement agencies presents too much of a conflict of interest.
100
@Barry Short
Some states like California already have such laws, but the Federal government enables and encourages local police to do an end-run around state law by allowing them to call in the Feds to do the forfeiture under Federal law with 80% of the proceeds paid to the local police department that called in the Feds.
Since the current ruling does not change Federal laws governing forfeiture, the above loop hole is not affected.
15
The idea that the constitution does not apply to the states is an argument that I have difficulty understanding. How the state Supreme Court could come up with that would imply that a state could authorize slavery and the Constitution would not apply. Who are these people to rule that way?
25
@James As I understand it, it is not that the constitution does not apply to states. It does. Instead, in the precedent the Supreme Court limited their opinion to excessive forfeitures by the federal government. Therefore, the state supreme court was obligated to uphold precedent and pass the decision to the Supreme Court. Now that the Supreme Court ruled that excessive forfeitures also applies to the state, they tossed it back to the state supreme court.
2
@James Think "Indiana" or rather "Mike Pence".
3
@James
The 10th Amendment is the basis for the state court's decision: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
But that basis ignores the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court rulings.
The 1st Amendment bars Congress from limiting the free exercise of religion, speech, peaceful assembly, etc. States were even allowed to have official religions under the 1st Amendment (and did until voters decided to repeal them). The 14th Amendment and Supreme Court decisions (especially in the 1920-40s) extended the Constitution's limits on federal power to the states.
2
I don't understand what this means:
"In the next phase of the litigation, Indiana courts will decide whether the seizure of the Land Rover amounted to an excessive fine."
Isn't the Supreme Court's ruling enough?
9
@Linda R. The Supreme Court wasn’t asked to decide that question. They were asked whether the Excessive Fines Clause applies to state actors, and said that it does. The lower court which had disagreed on that point will now be directed to apply the new law.
18
@Linda R.
The court is only ruling on the constitutional principle that fines cannot be excessive applies to states as well as the federal government. Indiana was arguing that it does not. SCOUTS isn't making a judgment one way or another on this particular fine.
Before, Indiana's supreme court was looking at the case with the understanding that excessive fines by states were allowed, so it didn't matter if it was excessive or not. Now, they have to reevaluate the case to determine if the fine was excessive.
Don't know if that helps. This is common, though. A higher court often sends a case back to a lower court with more guidance on how to judge the case.
13
@Sean C. Neither the Eighth nor the Fourteenth Amendments are particularly new. What is new is the present interpretation that both of those Amendments are applicable to state and local, as well as federal, governments.
The Indiana Supreme Court had based its decision, in part, on an understanding that Eighth Amendment did not apply to the several states. Present SCOTUS decision clearly establishes that it does indeed apply to the states.
4
Finally, a ruling that we can all agree on.
32
This is an excellent example of how the Supreme Court works and should work. Unfortunately, as the decision was not a 5-4 split and, thus, ripe for being a political Rorschach blot, few people are likely to read it.
To understand how the Court functions, it is helpful to note the different routes to the same conclusion taken by Justice Thomas and the other Justices. Often the dicta is more important than the holding in understanding not just the Court's thinking in the particular case but the direction it might go in more or less functionally parallel situations.
A number of commenters complain because the Court did not go "further" in righting wrongs. The Court legitimately decides cases, not principles or policies. If it did the latter, it would exceed its Constitutional mandate. In only a very limited way can you have nine appointed people legitimately overrule the will of 538 elected officials in a republican democracy.
30
@Steve Fankuchen Actually clearly more than 538 people (federal representatives and senators) because the Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by the states and counties and cities as well, so their rulings affect thousands of elected officials.
And actually 538 is the number of electors in the electoral college. There are 435 house representatives and 100 senators (for a total of 535 elected congress members). There is an elector chosen for each of those to the electoral college and an additional 3 for D.C. The electors are chosen, not elected.
5
Well, and to be super-precise, it’s a *majority* of 535 Congress members & a *majority*of lower courts. Not necessarily unanimity at any level, just a majority to approve / pass legislation.
@Tracy
Tracy, thank you very much for correcting my post. I wish every reader were as careful as you are. Too often we tend to accept as "truth" whatever we read or hear that affirms what we already believe, especially from a source that seems to be of our "persuasion." Of 25 Recommends so far, you are the only person to get it right. Again, many thanks. Keep it up!
2
The Blue Wall of Corruption just got their Asset Forfeiture toys taken away.
Poor corrupt babies.
87
@Socrates No they didn't. This ruling had nothing at all to do with Civil Forfeiture in general, which is still just as legal now as it was before the ruling.
2
I have spoken to many in the legal community about the problem -- and it is a BIG problem - of civil forfeitures which are grossly in excess of the crime committed (or even charged!). While the principle of CF is sound, I feel, the de facto manner where it becomes a slush fund for police OR a source of revenue for cities and states is just out of control.
Maybe next: bail and bond setting need massive reform!
53
@Mike
The principle was NEVER sound.
6
@Mike
this ruling does not address any requirement to actually be proven guilty of a crime, and as it stands now many jurisdictions still arrest, seize, and do not charge the arrested but refuse to give back the asset unless the arrested person pays them a "fine".
This behavior should be blatantly illegal, but by the last case I know of SCOTUS refused to hear it.
9
The real problem here is the bizarre doctrine called 'civil forfeiture', in which inanimate objects are charged and seized by police, who create slush funds in the process.
Only a person can commit a crime. Duh!
Taking a person's property requires conviction by a court, subject to the many rules established by Constitution and statutes. Duh!
The 8th amendment covers all forms of punishment. Duh!
38
@Pquincy14
"Taking a person's property requires conviction by a court,..."
that is actually not correct....no conviction is required in some jurisdictions.
3
This is great ruling. Police have been abusing their power for private financial gain for years. But, it goes beyond that. In California, for instance, they have these cameras on toll roads that take a picture of your license plate. If you don't go online to pay the toll within a few days, you're hit with a huge fine. Once, when I was in California for over a month, I arrived home to several letters in my mailbox. The first was a demand to pay 2 dollars and some odd cents with 14 days. The next letter was a demand to pay over $200. Then a letter to pay over $500. I didn't pay, but I haven't been back to California ever since.
47
@Mark What I recommend is that you pay the original $2-and-change and send it snail mail with a letter describing why you think the original amount is a fair amount and why you didn't get the bill right away. By not paying the full amount you make it so a human being has to actually look at and consider it--and you'd be stating a reasonable case.
That should get it cleared right up and you won't have to worry about it anymore.
4
@Mark
Toll charges by camera are not illegal or unconstitutional. Neither are red light camera tickets, no matter how much people whine about them.
pay your tolls, obey the driving rules, and there will be no problem.
btw CA will come looking for you. They have a kind of bizarre system where the CA FTB has its own court. They will file this in that court and it will sit for years with no action. When it nears its Statute of Limitation you will get contacted and told you owe thousands in fines and your only choices are admit to crime and they MIGHT work out a deal of face them in court to fight against a judgement. Even if they lose in court they cannot be made to pay your legal expenses.
I suggest you pay those tickets before they get around to looking for you...it is cheaper.
6
@mike
I’ll pay like Barack Obama did when I’m elected President of the United States.
This seems like a no-brainier to me, and I am glad that in divided times such as now, something like this can be processed justly.
You do a crime, your pay your fine and do the time. You have absolved yourself to society. No need for lawfully acquired assets to be seized. Because all that would do is put you back into disfranchisement and debt, feeding into the negative feedback loop that is poverty.
86
@Jack Yes, that is essentially the goal of the criminal justice system. Once you're inside of it, there's no value to the system in letting you leave, but there might be value in having you stay, so the whole thing is designed to trip you up and extend your punishment or increase the likelihood of a re-offense. Our corrections system is nothing more than a crime school.
3
I am disappointed that the judges did not rule on the fact that most of the forfeitures occur before a defendant is convicted and getting it returned if innocent is onerous.
Clearly this is not innocent until proven guilty.
335
@Charles
This decision just chips at the edges of the klepto-police state that has arison. It touches only a tiny portion of the theft by cop.
15
@Charles
The Justices ruled on the fact that Civil Forfeiture is Unconstitutional. It is a certainty that the ACLU presented this argument in their amicus curiae brief. That is one of the reasons the Court ruled as they did. The ruling covers your comment, by definition.
1
@Charles, civil forfeiture is much worse than you describe. It's independent of any other charges on a person. You do not have to be convicted ever, and even if found not guilty you do not get the forfeited property back unless you also prevail in a suite to reclaim your property!
23
Excellent ruling. The New Yorker has done some very in-depth reporting on the egregious practice of asset forfeiture and how in southern states it's routinely practiced against minority motorists, with police officers forcing people to take off and hand over their jewelry and wallets, without any proof they were involved in illegal activities. I'm only sad it took this long because so many people's lives have been ruined because of this practice.
120
@Shane
This ruling does not directly touch that. It will continue unabated for the present.
4
@Shane The New Yorker coverage by Sarah Stillwell (I think) was stunning and grossly disturbing: people who happened to be driving through a town, stopped for spurious reasons and stripped of their cars and other property without any persuasive legal process. These episodes read like a perverse Marx Bros comedy. Mind-blowing.
1
Better late than never.
21
It’s about time this kind of abuse is reined in. Thank you to the Supreme Court.
124
"In the next phase of the litigation, Indiana courts will decide whether the seizure of the Land Rover amounted to an excessive fine."
It will also have to decide whether the premiums paid for the life insurance policy were paid with proceeds of the Defendants heroin dealing.
That is just one ways illegal proceeds of criminal enterprises are laundered. Premiums are paid with small amounts of money for a policy on an elderly relative and converted into "legitimate" proceeds when the inevitable demise occurs.
Good that police are not to be inspired by mercenary interests.
9
@TOM No, the courts will not re-try the case. They will just re-visit the sentencing. Your suspicions may well be correct, but the courts won't be reviewing suspicions.
3
@TOM
they have no legal basis to investigate the life insurance payments of the dead dad.
5
America does not have a justice system it is the Justice industry
73
The decision doesn't seem to address an especially pernicious practice of civil forfeiture — forfeiture prior to or absent a conviction.
272
@Steve Roth civil forfeiture when no charges are laid is also known a "Robbery".
Citizens are deprived of their property at gun point with no prospect of it ever being returned, and no prospect of having their day in court.
Of course sometimes police are gathering evidence, so they need a bit of time to determine which charges to lay. That grace period should be measured in hours, not years or decades.
30
@Steve Roth SCOTUS and all other courts cannot rule on issues that are not brought before them. The complainant pleaded guilty so a conviction/guilt was not an issue in this case.
4
@Steve Roth
I completely agree, but the case before them only asserted that the fine was excessive and did not argue that forfeiture prior to conviction was inappropriate. Right fully so in my opinion as it was a much easier case to win. However challenging forfeiture prior to conviction will be logical next step.
5
The Supreme Court may very well be the only remaining institution left intact after the Trump onslaught.
@Cliff
I suggest we wait until contentious issues such as a woman’s right to choose an abortion or gun control come before the Court.
As a moderate, I see the Court’s increasingly conservative balance means that more decisions like Citizens United will continue.That decision has had huge impacts on the ability of special interests to contribute vast sums of money to political candidates.
And I truly fear for women’s rights to choose.
1
So Trump catches another break.
3
@Margaret
Please clarify. How on earth does this ruling have anything to do with Trump?
1
@Margaret Your comment reminded me that the Paul Manafort's New York Real Estate, worth approximately $22 million, will be seized by the government, albeit as part of plea deal and because it was purchased with money he acquired illegally. It will be interesting to see how Trump's lawyers might interpret this ruling if Trump is found guilty for crimes in New York and refuses a plea deal.
1
Excellent and well stated decision by the court
8
Nice to read about a GOOD decision from the Supreme Court, Ruth Ginsberg, great job!
68
We should not forget that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions revoked Obama-era rules put in place by Eric Holder that allowed state and local governments to do an end-run around state laws restricting these sorts of egregious penalties.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/justice-department-civil-asset-forfeiture.html
Just another example of the Trump administration trampling on the Constitution.
Bravo for the Supreme Court for putting an end to this nonsense.
29
@J Anders
Are you saying that Obama-era rules allowed an end-run around restrictions? That's what it seems to say.
10
@J Anders
you misstate the Obama era rules. They stopped Fed Gov from using the CAF as a tool. Sessions rolled back those rules allowing CAF to restart by the Fed Gov.
3
@J Anders Obama and Holder closed the Federal loophole that allowed local law enforcement to violate state laws. Sessions opened it back up so that local law enforcement could once again hide behind Federal law to steal from people. please be clear about these facts.
3
This article says, "the Indiana Supreme Court ruled ... that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to ones imposed by states."
This leaves the impression that the court ruled that "excessive" fines are okay under Indiana law. Did the Indiana court actually say that?
Its ruling on the applicability of the U.S. Constitution suggests that it did (why else go beyond Indiana law?), but such a ruling would be so egregious that it would have been nice for the article to be explicit on this point.
14
@Joe Ryan The Indiana court was ruling that Indiana's legislature has the right to impose excessive fines, not that excessive fines are okay. Unless the 14th amendment prohibits it, states have broad authority under the 10th amendment to do things we would consider inappropriate for the US government to do. Thus, the Indiana court was pontificating that since the Supreme Court had not ruled as such, that the Indiana lower courts were in error. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that yes, indeed, states can't go around taking your stuff because you smoked pot that one time.
3
@Joe Ryan
Courts normally rule as narrowly as possible. Looks like that was what the Indiana supreme Court did just that:
"Before addressing whether forfeiture of Timbs's Land Rover would be an excessive fine, we must decide the antecedent question of whether the Excessive Fines Clause applies to forfeitures by the State. "
https://www.leagle.com/decision/ininco20171102267
2
The court should have also struck down the excessive amounts of court fines, fees, surcharges and monetary penalties that essentially keeps the poor permanently poor.
In at least 43 states, defendants can be billed for a public defender.
In at least 41 states, inmates can be charged room and board for jail and prison stays.
In at least 44 states, offenders can get billed for their own probation and parole supervision.
And in all states except Hawaii, there's a fee for the electronic monitoring devices defendants and offenders are ordered to wear.
“In the United States, many jurisdictions rely on fees and fines for revenue for the criminal justice system and for other programs,” said Mitali Nagrecha, director of the National Criminal Justice Debt Initiative at CJPP.
“This has led to an increase in fees assessed across the country and more aggressive collection tactics, including time in jail. Given the makeup and size of our criminal justice system, this unsurprisingly places a disproportionate burden on large numbers of poor people and communities of color.”
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/21/us-criminal-justice-system-fuels-poverty-cycle
The American war on the poor - and people of color - is never-ending.
Raise taxes if you want to run a respectable judicial system ....and stop penalizing the poor for a living.
Shameful America.
383
Excellent comments. Thank you
29
@Socrates, I'm ashamed that I did not know about these specific state rules. People being billed for a public defender?! Thank you for sharing this info.
This is particularly disturbing in light of 2 other trends that are eroding our system of justice:
1. Essentially forcing people to give up their right to sue and instead agree to binding arbitration if they want to use needed services, make everyday purchases, or even get a paycheck.
2. Forcing people to give up their right to a speedy (or any) trial and instead plead guilty to something they may not have done. Which disproportionately affects the poor who cannot post bail.
What's happening to us as a country?
134
@Socrates Absolutely -- and that doesn't even account for the increasingly for-profit US prison system. A lot of people, in both the public and private sector, have banked on the assumption that once you've been convicted of a crime, the general public isn't really going to care if the rest of your life is ruined (unless of course you're rich and white) -- so why not profit from it?
27
Civil forfeiture is one issue that has united forces from across the political spectrum. Oddly, however, those forces have enjoyed limited success in curtailing the abuses, which speaks to the power of law enforcement agencies that use such forfeiture for revenue generation. You also should pay attention to Gorsuch's and Thomas' concurrences, which point to the Privileges or Immunities Clause as the vehicle for incorporating the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. This could be the beginning of a trend in constitutional jurisprudence away from the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.
28
@James
For once I find myself in greater agreement with Justice Thomas' reasoning than with the Ginsburg opinion. The Ninth Amendment also should not be ignored, as it usually is.
3
@Thomas Zaslavsky
You are agreeing with Thomas and I am agreeing with you. Will wonders never cease?
Seriously, pretty much everyone who isn’t getting to keep and spend this money( cops and prosecutors) agree on this. But whenever a bill gets to a legislature, a swarm of blue descends on the legislature.
4
@James
I doubt it. Thomas made a similar claim about using the privileges and immunities clause in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). His position would require overturning the Slaughthouse Cases and rewriting the case law on incorporation. Its not surprising that his approach isn't gaining majority support; it is largely unnecesary at this point.
1