Supreme Court Will Decide If Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional, Violates The Eighth Amendment

[Tanis143]

Addiction is a problem and prison is NO fix for it. All non violent crimes should be treated as such instead of locking up people because we are just mad at them for getting high on whatever it is. I'm not saying make heroin available, just don't make a felon out of those using it peacefully. Distribution I think should be a different matter which in this case I guess applies. But the guy is still in need of rehabilitation, not training on how to become a hardened criminal in prison while still having all the access to heroin he wants. And 90% of those cases get out of jail to become our neighbors if they can find a job, or they end up back in prison. America has to stop locking up its people, taking their freedoms away forever, over a crime that hurt no one but themselves.
Simple possession of any drug in OK is a misdemeanor now and $400 ticket which is a damn good start.

I stated this in my reply and agree that users should not become felons. The dealers should. That's why I said this particular case he should lose his ride, regardless of the value of it, IF it was used in the process of distributing an illegal narcotic. However, this case doesn't touch on the true abuse of CF where the person was not convicted and/or charged with a crime yet lost assets to police departments who get to keep the assets. That runs afoul of the 4th. Having it seized and put in an evidence locker then released when not convicted or charged is ok. But CF basically allows police departments to seize cash and assets and keep it regardless.

 

[CHenry]

I stated this in my reply and agree that users should not become felons. The dealers should. That's why I said this particular case he should lose his ride, regardless of the value of it, IF it was used in the process of distributing an illegal narcotic. However, this case doesn't touch on the true abuse of CF where the person was not convicted and/or charged with a crime yet lost assets to police departments who get to keep the assets. That runs afoul of the 4th. Having it seized and put in an evidence locker then released when not convicted or charged is ok. But CF basically allows police departments to seize cash and assets and keep it regardless.

I know all about CAF and I'm glad its finally getting some attention. Been on this bandwagon for years.

 

[Dave70968]

In this case the person was found guilty of a crime. What about the many instances where people had assests seized yet were never convicted of a crime or charged with one? I'm a huge LEO supporter with both parents, one grandparent and one uncle being LEOs, but civil forfeiture has been abused and goes against the 4th amendment. However, if someone is convicted of a crime, any assets used to commit that crime should be forfeited. Unless he was not in his vehicle when he sold the drugs I would say its justifiable to have it seized. Just my 2 cents.

We have a porcedure for that; it's called "criminal forfeiture." As to this case, do note that the forfeiture was four times the maximum criminal fine, thus why this case sounds in the Eighth Amendment as well as the Fourth.

We have some laws on the books where real property can be seized; in fact, I recall of one where an entire motel was seized because a guest was caught with drugs.

 

[doctorjj]

We have a porcedure for that; it's called "criminal forfeiture." As to this case, do note that the forfeiture was four times the maximum criminal fine, thus why this case sounds in the Eighth Amendment as well as the Fourth.

We have some laws on the books where real property can be seized; in fact, I recall of one where an entire motel was seized because a guest was caught with drugs.

All of those laws are unconstitutional and invalid in my opinion. Unfortunately, my opinion doesn’t matter. There should be no civil forfeiture. None. Unless you are convicted of a crime that directly ties that money to the crime, it shouldn’t be able to be taken. But still, it’s kinda crazy how we got to where we are now with all these laws for everything, so many that fly in the face of the constitution.

 

[Glocktogo]

This may not be the greatest case to review, but I think it's good enough. This isn't the first completely jacked up ruling to come out of the Indiana State Supreme Court. Somebody needs to fix that place!

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-supreme-court/1567674.html

 

[Tanis143]

This may not be the greatest case to review, but I think it's good enough. This isn't the first completely jacked up ruling to come out of the Indiana State Supreme Court. Somebody needs to fix that place!

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-supreme-court/1567674.html

All of those laws are unconstitutional and invalid in my opinion. Unfortunately, my opinion doesn’t matter. There should be no civil forfeiture. None. Unless you are convicted of a crime that directly ties that money to the crime, it shouldn’t be able to be taken. But still, it’s kinda crazy how we got to where we are now with all these laws for everything, so many that fly in the face of the constitution.

If its part of a crime it is held as evidence. If not convicted it would be returned. This is what I was saying. Anything that is connected to a crime should be logged as evidence. IF convicted then all pieces of evidence become property of the municipality that arrested you. I could care less about some poor drug dealer losing his ride, regardless of the cost of that ride. But only if it was directly tied to the crime (was selling drugs from it).

 

[p238shooter]

If I sleep in my house the night before I go out and get a speeding ticket, should I have my house confiscated? Realizing this is a very backed away example, but I do not understand the confiscation unless it was being held for evidence.

Even then, after it was used for evidence, and the case closed one way or the other, the purpose for the item being held is done. It is no longer needed by the legal system and should be returned to the owner if it was not an illegal to have item.

Why should anything legal be confiscated? Seems this is what this case is about.

 

[Dave70968]

If I sleep in my house the night before I go out and get a speeding ticket, should I have my house confiscated? Realizing this is a very backed away example, but I do not understand the confiscation unless it was being held for evidence.

Even then, after it was used for evidence, and the case closed one way or the other, the purpose for the item being held is done. It is no longer needed by the legal system and should be returned to the owner if it was not an illegal to have item.

Why should anything legal be confiscated? Seems this is what this case is about.

It's just a revenue-raising measure, plus a backdoor punishment to get around the criminal fine limits and make .gov appear "tough on crime."

You know, policing for profit.

 

[Tanis143]

If I sleep in my house the night before I go out and get a speeding ticket, should I have my house confiscated? Realizing this is a very backed away example, but I do not understand the confiscation unless it was being held for evidence.

Even then, after it was used for evidence, and the case closed one way or the other, the purpose for the item being held is done. It is no longer needed by the legal system and should be returned to the owner if it was not an illegal to have item.

Why should anything legal be confiscated? Seems this is what this case is about.

Was your house used in the commission of a crime? No? Then it's not seized. It has (at least in theory, it has been abused and that should be punished as well) nothing to do with revenue generation. It's a punishment. Same thing with speeding tickets. Instead of time in jail or community service, a small fine is paid for traffic violations. People see that as illegal, but yet they have no answer to how else you should punish someone for traffic violations.

Point blank is anything you use to commit a crime is first used as evidence then given to the municipality that arrested you after a guilty verdict. If you are found innocent or are not charged, those items should be returned. That is how it is supposed to work.

 

[bigred1]

If it's not partly about generating revenue for police departments then why isn't the money that's made from auctioning off confiscated items given to local charities?