https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...forfeiture

Quote:The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 9-0 that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines, written into the Eighth Amendment, applies to the states as well — a sweeping ruling that strengthens property rights and could limit controversial police seizures, such as those done through civil forfeiture, nationwide.

The case, Timbs v. Indiana, started with a lawsuit from Tyson Timbs, who pleaded guilty in Indiana to drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft. After he pleaded guilty, the courts ordered him to forfeit a Land Rover SUV, valued at $42,000, that Timbs had bought with his dad’s life insurance policy. Timbs argued that the seizure was essentially an excessive fine, because it was more than four times the $10,000 maximum fine he could see from his drug conviction under state law.

The legal question came down to whether states are barred from imposing such excessive fines. When the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments in the US Constitution) was ratified, it only applied at the federal level. But the 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War, promised to extend the constitutional rights to the state level too.

The Supreme Court has ruled that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to states over the years, through a process called incorporation. But a few parts remain unincorporated — including, until Wednesday, the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause.

9-0, was there a RBG sighting or did she vote from her house?

(02-20-2019 02:43 PM)q5sys Wrote:  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...forfeiture

Quote:The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 9-0 that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines, written into the Eighth Amendment, applies to the states as well — a sweeping ruling that strengthens property rights and could limit controversial police seizures, such as those done through civil forfeiture, nationwide.

The case, Timbs v. Indiana, started with a lawsuit from Tyson Timbs, who pleaded guilty in Indiana to drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft. After he pleaded guilty, the courts ordered him to forfeit a Land Rover SUV, valued at $42,000, that Timbs had bought with his dad’s life insurance policy. Timbs argued that the seizure was essentially an excessive fine, because it was more than four times the $10,000 maximum fine he could see from his drug conviction under state law.

The legal question came down to whether states are barred from imposing such excessive fines. When the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments in the US Constitution) was ratified, it only applied at the federal level. But the 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War, promised to extend the constitutional rights to the state level too.

The Supreme Court has ruled that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to states over the years, through a process called incorporation. But a few parts remain unincorporated — including, until Wednesday, the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause.

That's a step back in the right direction.

Yea, never liked the whole civil forfeiture stuff, though I understood it (the reasoning) at the time.

Then, as with all government largesse, it became a very lucrative “profit center” and was increasingly abused by states and locales.

9-0 should send a pretty clear message. One would hope...

Note that the ruling doesnt eliminate civil forfeiture. All it does is limit its application to 'excessive' amounts relative to the underlying crime.

(02-20-2019 02:45 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  9-0, was there a RBG sighting or did she vote from her house?

Here's a Bloomberg story about yesterday.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ce-surgery

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an active participant as she sat for her first U.S. Supreme Court argument since she underwent lung cancer surgery two months ago.

Ginsburg, 85, climbed three steps to the court’s bench with no apparent difficulty as the hour-long session began. She waited barely a minute before asking the first of five questions she posed in the patent case.

(In other words, she's asked five more questions than Clarence Thomas has in the past 10 years)

Thomas asked one in 2016

(02-20-2019 02:45 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  9-0, was there a RBG sighting or did she vote from her house?

It was decided before, it was just released this month.

Quote:OCTOBER TERM, 2018

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18...1_5536.pdf

(02-20-2019 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Note that the ruling doesnt eliminate civil forfeiture. All it does is limit its application to 'excessive' amounts relative to the underlying crime.

Which i think is the argument most of us have stood for.

Now the argument will be when states set different fines for identical crimes, so this one is going to come back up in another argument in the future at some point.

(02-20-2019 03:31 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Note that the ruling doesnt eliminate civil forfeiture. All it does is limit its application to 'excessive' amounts relative to the underlying crime.

Which i think is the argument most of us have stood for.

Now the argument will be when states set different fines for identical crimes, so this one is going to come back up in another argument in the future at some point.

Yep, someone or some court is going to have to define what "excessive" means.

Good ruling

(02-20-2019 04:28 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:31 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Note that the ruling doesnt eliminate civil forfeiture. All it does is limit its application to 'excessive' amounts relative to the underlying crime.

Which i think is the argument most of us have stood for.

Now the argument will be when states set different fines for identical crimes, so this one is going to come back up in another argument in the future at some point.

Yep, someone or some court is going to have to define what "excessive" means.

Exactly. So we know that a seizure of a 40k auto, paid for with funds not related to any crime, is 'excessive' in light of a 10k fine. That is the only guideline we (or the States, for that matter) have at the present.

(02-20-2019 02:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yea, never liked the whole civil forfeiture stuff, though I understood it (the reasoning) at the time.

Then, as with all government largesse, it became a very lucrative “profit center” and was increasingly abused by states and locales.

9-0 should send a pretty clear message. One would hope...

I don't like it because as it has been done before by a certain church that took away everything a person possessed just because the person was pronounced guilty of heresy or blasphemy. That's how that church became so rich and even noblemen were afraid of the power of that church.

(02-20-2019 05:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 04:28 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:31 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Note that the ruling doesnt eliminate civil forfeiture. All it does is limit its application to 'excessive' amounts relative to the underlying crime.

Which i think is the argument most of us have stood for.

Now the argument will be when states set different fines for identical crimes, so this one is going to come back up in another argument in the future at some point.

Yep, someone or some court is going to have to define what "excessive" means.

Exactly. So we know that a seizure of a 40k auto, paid for with funds not related to any crime, is 'excessive' in light of a 10k fine. That is the only guideline we (or the States, for that matter) have at the present.

Unless the item was integral to the crime...

I'd be okay with that

(02-20-2019 02:45 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  9-0, was there a RBG sighting or did she vote from her house?

Come on, she's been spotted with prominent democrats several times.

This thread is creepy af.

(02-20-2019 04:28 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:31 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Note that the ruling doesnt eliminate civil forfeiture. All it does is limit its application to 'excessive' amounts relative to the underlying crime.

Which i think is the argument most of us have stood for.

Now the argument will be when states set different fines for identical crimes, so this one is going to come back up in another argument in the future at some point.

Yep, someone or some court is going to have to define what "excessive" means.

I wonder if this is excessive...

UHP may be forced to return nearly $500K in seized money to man after Utah Supreme Court ruling
By Carter Williams, KSL.com | Posted - Aug 24th, 2018 @ 1:41pm

Quote:SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Highway Patrol may have to return almost $500,000 to a California man whose money was seized during a 2016 traffic stop.

The Supreme Court of Utah ruled Wednesday in favor of Kyle Savely, 32, of Los Angeles, who had appealed a 3rd District Court ruling in 2017 that dismissed his petition against the highway patrol.

The legal battle began back on Nov. 27, 2016, when Savely was pulled over by a Utah Highway Patrol trooper in Summit County for following another vehicle too closely. The trooper searched the vehicle for drugs and did not find any, but seized an “undetermined amount of U.S. currency contained in 52 bundles," a $50 bill, a phone and other personal property during the search, according to an asset seizure notification form attached to Savely's initial complaint filed in 3rd District Court on Feb. 10, 2017.

Quote:The value of the money was later determined to be $489,480 and had been seized under the Forfeiture and Disposition of Property Act (FDPA).

Nearly a half-million dollars seized for no crime.

I don't know about the legal definition of "excessive" but that sure sounds like it would qualify.

Utah police seized $2.2M in cash under civil forfeiture law
By Julian Hattem, Associated Press | Posted - Jul 5th, 2018 @ 2:07pm

Quote:SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah police seized about $2.2 million in cash last year under a law allowing authorities to take someone's property even if they aren't charged or convicted of a crime, a state report showed.