Comment by insane_dreamer

>It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object

That is correct, but you need to understand the context. It originated in the 1600s as a way for maritime law to deal with pirate/smuggler ships who were operating in international waters, not flying the flag of any nation, and with no registered owner. Charging the ship and its contents with the crime rather than an unknown individual made sense in that context. Applying it to a car registered in the United States, driving down a highway in the United States, and being driven by a US citizen makes absolutely no sense because standard law can and should deal with that situation.

It's the explanation, but it still makes no sense to me. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."

This here dog is an officer of the law and he smells money in your car, and uh, ya see, that money's wanted. please step out so i may confiscate it. Disagree with his infallible assessment? that's disorderly conduct sir, place your hands behind your back.

It gets pretty messed up when the police can take custody of an entire house because someone once had drugs there.

There was a case a few years ago where the parents lost their house because their son once was caught with drugs in the house.

>> the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply

That's easy to refute. By the time they take the cash, hand it to the feds, get a percentage back to locals, then a person wins in court and gets their money back... I don't think they give back the exact same physical cash that was taken as "evidence". So when they say it's evidence they are lying - it's not locked up with other evidence, it's taken to a bank and deposited.

SCOTUS is out of touch with reality. And I'm not reacting to Trump-era decisions - even under Obama, the justices were watering down the Bill of Rights in cases like Salinas v. Texas (2013).

Previously, if you refused to talk to the police, that was considered invoking your fifth amendment right against self incrimination, hence the standard advice from attorneys to keep your mouth shut until they were present. Now, you must explicitly invoke it every time the police question you or your silence can be used against you, even if that silence was in response to informal questioning on the street with no intention of arrest.

It all makes sense when you consider how privileged the modern Court is: few of the justices in 2013 or today have actually worked as criminal defense attorneys, and only one has ever worked as a public defender (Ketanji Jackson, for two years; I will give Ginsburg credit for her work at the ACLU, but that is still a notable step above being a public defender). We haven't even had a justice whose read the law (became a lawyer without getting a law degree from a law school) since the death of Robert Jackson in 1954. (Robert Jackson is also the man behind the famous quote "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.")

Now, almost all have come from privileged backgrounds, went to Ivy League institutions, live in gated communities, are completely detached from the reality of what the average American knows about the law, and certainly aren't going to be taken advantage of by the cops. It's no surprise we've seen such an assault on our constitutional rights: they don't understand what life is like outside the ivory tower.

Then I should be able to sue the police departments property. Gosub100 vs copcar. They can then file a claim to get it back from me.

> but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply.

The loophole is that money, unlike most other inanimate objects, isn't considered "property".

Any fine should have the option of a court date attached in order to follow due process, like a traffic fine. But many types of fines don't have the presumption of innocence, or the day in court prescribed. Civil forfeiture is an extension of that process, also relying on the fact that money isn't property so taking it away doesn't violate the "no person may be deprived of property without due process of law" constitutional article.

> accusing an inanimate object (the money itself)

yeah, I know that's the argument, but it flies in the face of all reason

It comes from "we know you're guilty but we can't prove it so we're going to take your stuff away". But that's what presumption of innocence means -- if you can't be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt then you're not guilty, period! (You might in fact be guilty, but under the law you're not guilty.) Otherwise, there is no presumption of innocence and the police can do whatever they want, just like in some countries where the police are a law to themselves.

That is sophistry.

It appears that the law is full of totally BS circumventions like this, that only make sense as abuse of the spirit of the law.

Like how you're legally supposed to not have an "expectation of privacy" for your mail, because it's handed by the post office...

"It doesn't matter that you don't consent to the search. We're not searching you, just that stuff that is attached to you. So, shut up, or we're arresting you for interfering"

Imagine if the same logic was used for a criminal defense: "Your honor, I didn't kill $VICTIM, it was the $WEAPON that killed $VICTIM".

UK has this addition from the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act:

> You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.

> pretty universal around the globe

except in "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") countries like China where if the police say you're guilty, you will be found guilty, 100% guaranteed

IIRC the Napoleonic Code doesn't have presumption of innocence, and countries with a legal system built on that code don't have it either -- but I haven't researched it recently so couldn't say which those are.

>> It's civil meaning there is no right to an attorney, the burden of proof is lower, etc.

That's a cute story, but it still goes directly against the 4th amendment, which make no distinction between criminal or civil or any other "type" of law.

> or CA saying they'll do the same to gun owners).

But doesn't the CA law explicitly acknowledge this by saying if the TX law is ever knocked back the CA law automatically becomes null and void?

> a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should

And I'm arguing that the forfeiture system itself contravenes the principles of justice on which the US is founded.

Have you lived in countries where the police can just take away your stuff without recourse because they are a law unto themselves? I have. Trust me, it's no fun.

We have it here in the UK as well, although it's not quite as harsh (except for large amounts of cash, which the police don't consider normal). The seized items were either being actively used in the crime or it can be shown could only have been purchased through proceeds of crime (eg admin assistant earning 20k who was drug dealing) has a million pound house with no other explanation)

That's not a US thing, that's an every country everywhere thing.

Another example would be the fine principle of democracy, and the loopholes of gerrymandering and selective voter suppression.

It makes more sense when you ask "Who bears the burden of these loopholes?" and the answer is always "They disadvantage people of colour".

>It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power.

I'll add taxes to the list.