Comment by archon
7 years ago
I'm worried that because this is a case in which the defendant actually did deal drugs, the court will rule in favor of the civil forfeiture laws and the SC case will then be used as a precedent to justify broader use of civil forfeiture. But IANAL, so maybe the danger isn't as big as I fear.
Considering the lower courts all agreed that the forfeiture was excessive, I'm not inclined to worry too much about that.
It appears to be going to the supreme court b/c the Indiana Supreme Court said that the amendment regarding excessive fines doesn't apply to the states.
So the real question being asked to the SC in this case is "Must states abide by the 8th amendment?"
Since they must 1st, 2nd, and others - I don't see why they would not be required to do so.
It's because of selective incorporation. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine). For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
I can't for the life of me understand why the 10th amendment does not have a more prominent place in the American political system than it does. It is because government would be hamstrung if they respected it? It would seem to the layman that is the entire reason it exists!
48 replies →
Thanks for this link! I'm learning a lot that I never really even knew to know about.
It's a mess. It's probably the best mess they could put together - but it's still a mess.
1 reply →
>For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
No. The second amendment was always incorporated "against" (for) the states.
McDonald only clarified what was always the reality. That a state can not preempt federal laws with keeping and barring arms for self defense. Notice that last part, the SPECIFIC INTENTION of the case is for self defense.
Your own link makes note that selective incorporation doesn't apply to the bill of rights. Well, it does but not objectively. It's pretty ridiculous to make the assertion 2010's McDonald and not 2008's Hellar the "the 2A law". But that was your goal to find something that fit an antigun narrative.
17 replies →
You're correct that this isn't really the type of case that will set a precedent for the most troublesome applications of civil forfeiture. I wish cases like these [1] would reach the Supreme Court. In one of those cases, a man that had just won $50,000 in cash from a casino had it seized, even though he wasn't cited for a traffic offense or charged with any crime. It would be nice if legislators simply outlawed the practice, but the political will doesn't exist. A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/...
> A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture.
I posit it's a better way (assuming SCOTUS makes decides an actual Constitutional question) than legislation, since it precludes legislators merely reinstating the practice later.
Political will is getting there. A couple of states have banned the practice, and more are removing the incentive that police departments have to do it(that the funds go to the police).
If they just drop the case or the person wins in the lower courts and gets their money back then it will never get to the Supreme Court, they have to fight to keep the money (which they don't if it's obvious they'll lose) in order for it to reach the higher levels.
I've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the property itself so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture.
I've heard previously that they go so far as saying the charges are against the property itself so the owner has no standing to sue the government which keeps them from ever determining the constitutionality of civil forfeiture.
This is generally how the cases are titled - U.S.A vs $200,000 US currency, for example. Here's a list of recent federal court cases where the defendant is "currency" [1]. You can also view publicly posted forfeiture notices, which give an indication of the magnitude of this problem, here [2]. But the owner can still attempt to get it back, it's just usually at a very high legal cost.
[1] https://prnt.sc/jzcl8c
[2] https://www.forfeiture.gov
It would be a wild dereliction of the duty of SCOTUS to let the facts of a particular case influence their judgement on a broader legal question. Many cases get sent back to lower courts without resolving a broader legal question because the facts of a particular case weren't quite perfectly aligned to make it an appropriate vehicle to resolve a broad question. The political gerrymandering cases decided thus far this term are a good example.
> The political gerrymandering cases decided thus far this term are a good example.
Masterpiece Cake Shop was as well. The court ruled in his favor, but was able to wiggle out of resolving the constitutional questions because of explicit bias on the part of the CO Civil Rights Commission.
This is getting off topic, but: I read Masterpiece as saying that, if you're going to apply the rules against a Christian baker, you have to apply the same rules against a gay baker (CO Civil Rights ignored complaints from Christians against gay bakers who wouldn't put some Christian message on their cake).
I think this is the right approach. A Christian could go to a gay baker, asking for a cake that quoted a Bible verse that said that homosexuality is a sin. A gay rights convention could ask a Christian baker for a cake that said "Christianity is bigotry". The rules for one have to be the rules for the other.
My preferred answer: Put a gay baker and a Christian baker in a room. Tell them to come up with the rules. The rules will apply to both of them. Give them two hours. You'll get a reasonable proposal. Make that the rules.
1 reply →
Whatever its other faults, SCOTUS is usually pretty good about not letting crummy defendants blind them to setting good precedent. For example, Miranda warnings came about when they threw out the conviction of a man who had almost certainly kidnapped and raped a teenager.
This has always fascinated me. It's very strange to think about the fact that society works this way, and that it has to.
It doesn't seem strange at all. It's not the Supreme Court's fault that the defendant or plaintiff in any particular case are scummy or sympathetic, nobodies or famous, weak or powerful. They are aware that their decisions will affect many more people.
They need to create law which caters for the for the wrongly accused as much as it does the rightly accused.
4 replies →
It's the same thing that puzzles some people about the ACLU.
It's called rule of law, not rule of monarch (monarchy) or rule of mob (pure democracy).
Miranda v. Arizona was decided over 50 years ago. How relevant is the behavior of SCOTUS 50 years ago to predicting their present-day behavior? The membership is completely different, and there have been countless other changes in law and American society and culture over that period. (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point, which may well be right, but your example might not be the best example to demonstrate it.)
(And especially considering that the present-day SCOTUS has been accused of repeatedly eroding Miranda v. Arizona, see especially Berghuis v. Thompkins in 2010.)
> Miranda v. Arizona was decided over 50 years ago. How relevant is the behavior of SCOTUS 50 years ago to predicting their present-day behavior? The membership is completely different, and there have been countless other changes in law and American society and culture over that period.
Because the Supreme Court is an institution with an institutional culture. Furthermore, its members obsessively study it's past decisions and their reasoning, so I'd expect its culture to have quite a bit of inertia.
3 replies →
I was thinking the same thing. There are tons of examples of forfeiture happening because of 'assumed illegality', especially when it comes to having money on you - that could have been a better way for the SC to strike it down harshly. I still don't agree with it in this case, but I don't think it helps the case that he did sell Heroin, which is a sore subject these days.
You should read a little bit more about this case. The actual question the Supreme Court is deciding here is whether the 8th amendment applies to rulings issued by state courts. Something that should be seemingly obvious but it's actually not entirely settled in existing case law.
IANAL either, but the Supreme Court generally prefers to set very narrow precedents.
It's possible they'll rule that civil forfeiture was acceptable in this one specific case, and they'll go out of their way to make it clear that their ruling only applies to this specific case.
In my mind, this is more a risk with smaller courts and SCOTUS exists on a higher plane. In my mind.