
U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property - ComputerGuru
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html
======
da_chicken
The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what
the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is
extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the
minimum ruling necessary.

Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined
$1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well.

Timbs sued or appealed the confiscation by Indiana, which he he could prove he
didn't buy with drug money. The judge of the lower court of Indiana agreed.

The state appealed the judge's ruling. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the
lower court's decision, ruling that the 8th Amendment did not apply to the
states.

The SCotUS unanimously disagreed and vacated the Indiana Supreme Court's
ruling. The 8th Amendment _does_ apply to the states. However, _that 's all
that they ruled upon_. They didn't not rule on whether or not confiscating the
SUV was an excessive fine, and remanded the case back to the Indiana state
courts.

Now the state of Indiana will be given an opportunity to prove in Indiana
court that confiscating the SUV is not an excessive fine. That seems unlikely,
however, since the charge Timbs was convicted of carried a statutory maximum
fine of $10,000, well below the value of the SUV.

~~~
KorematsuFred
I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court
could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial
restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial
culture.

~~~
sathackr
It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches.

Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker.

It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

~~~
KorematsuFred
I am from India and Indian courts are nothing but bunch of old men sermonizing
everyone else. They often have barely read law, believe in extraordinary
processes and completely arbitrary legal doctrines such as "constitutional
morality" that compels them to actually ignore the law.

Digging deep I realize that this is because most of them will retire at 60
after which they either seek lucrative jobs from their political masters or
they want to appear on TV debates as "experts". They have even reserved a lot
of jobs for their own kind post-retirement. A number of institutions in India
can only have "retired judge" as their chief.

Even though there are strong arguments why judges in USA too should have term
limits or retirement age, I think there are these issues in our blindspot that
need attention too.

~~~
keko039ndnfm
It’s the same in the US

The masses are bought in and ignore it

Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process

They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied

There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there
is in India

And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others

~~~
keko039ndnfm
They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system
from inside the system

They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic
fashion, based upon their biases

Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself

Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to
reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary

We got James Madison’s version of government, who described the Senate as a
legislative body to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Thus the
justice system evolved over time only assessing laws and building its
existence on questions of property rights and ownership.

Not saying it’s scandalous or wrong but it’s only concerned with internal
consistency, like India.

Look at how the GOP is largely pushing a platform that’s hundreds of years
old, with an outcome that resembles the way things were before the New Deal

It’s just old guys advocating for their personal feelings. Exactly what the
person from India said :shrug:

~~~
da_chicken
>They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system
from inside the system

> They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic
> fashion, based upon their biases

> Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself

It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is
explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were
passed by existing legislatures. If you want massive, sweeping changes in the
structure and nature of a law, you need to go to the legislature or otherwise
pick up rifle and start a revolution. It is not the job of SCotUS to create
new law. That's why they get so much flack for "legislating from the bench"
when they make sweeping decisions. They're not supposed to do that, and they
typically only do when making rulings surrounding the Constitution itself and
it's Amendments.

~~~
KorematsuFred
We must also remember that once we accept the position that SCOTUS can create
new law, it can go both ways and not sure your way.

Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both give examples of poker. Imagine a
standard Poker game where everyone knows the rule, some win some lose and yet
there are no fights. Change the Poker game rules such that the dealer can
change the rules at his whim and we will have fights (even though the dealer
might not actually affect anyone's earnings).

SCOTUS not going out of their way is good for society.

------
whatshisface
> _Justice Thomas agreed with the result in the case, Timbs v. Indiana, No.
> 17-1091, but said he would have gotten to the same place by a different
> route. While the majority relied on the due process clause of the 14th
> Amendment, Justice Thomas said he would have ruled “the right to be free
> from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of
> the United States’ protected by the 14th Amendment.”_

I was going to comment that the real biggest legal problem with civil
forfeiture is how it circumvents due process, but it sounds like that was the
actual ruling given by the supreme court. I think the title of the article
disagrees with the last paragraph. It was actually Justice Thomas who wanted
to rule that it constituted excessive punishment, while the rest of the court
ruled that it constituted a breach of due process.

~~~
ls612
That’s not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the
federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was
passed. Since then the clause in that amendment saying no one can be deprived
of life or liberty without due process has been interpreted to mean most of
the bill of rights also applies to the states. This ruling said as much for
the 8th amendment prohibitions on excessive fines.

Thomas just wanted to use a different clause of the 14th amendment to achieve
the same outcome.

~~~
colmmacc
As a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections
of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome
at all. Due process is afforded to "persons".

~~~
saas_sam
No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. If this
"terrifies" you, I encourage you to reflect on your fears and whether some of
them may be disproportionate to reality.

~~~
Tomte
Germany provides many Basic Rights to everybody.

Others are only for citizens (and EU citizens, but via a strange legal
method), but the most fundamental ones state "Everyone", not "every citizen".

~~~
renholder
Same with Sweden. For example, Allemansrätten (Freedom to Roam) applies to
alla människor (or all people), not just citizens.

~~~
Tomte
Right. It's mentioned in every tourist guide I've seen about Sweden, and it is
drawing outdoor types to the country.

Smart move. :-)

------
DontGiveTwoFlux
A swipe against excessive civil forfeitures succeeds. These aggressive actions
require citizens to forfeit property far in excess of any harm committed. In
the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few hundred
dollars of heroine.

We have laws to punish illegal behavior, but it’s not right that all your
property get snatched up too. The most egregious of these cases often involve
no due process at all. People who are stopped and found to have large amounts
of cash simply have it seized, even if they are never charged with a crime.

Recourse is often slow and expensive. It’s unlikely that this ruling will
immediately change the rampant unconstitutional practices many police
departments and towns rely on. But it is a step in the right direction.
Hopefully, they will be taken to task in time.

~~~
Theodores
> In the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few
> hundred dollars of heroine.

Interesting perspective there. Some people think that heroin dealers deserve
to be fully hung, drawn and quartered, their head placed on a spike to be
pecked at by the crows.

Others might think that 'it was just a bit of dope, why should he have to
forfeit anything for that?'.

The car is potentially proceeds of crime it also enables the crime of dealing
to be carried out. A reasonable case for him forfeiting it can definitely be
made without that being the police preying off the 'victim'. In the UK any
police action that leads to people losing stuff as it is deemed proceeds of
crime goes to the crown, i.e. the queen, rather than to the local police
department. In the USA you need something similar so that the police can't be
accused of being on the take.

~~~
larkeith
> The car is potentially proceeds of crime

The car was reliably documented as being purchased from his father's life
insurance proceeds. There was no question of it being potentially purchased by
illegal means.

Far more importantly, the entire question is irrelevant: we have standardized
maximum fines and the burden of proof for very good reasons. Civil forfeiture
skips both, making a mockery of the justice system for profit.

Those who believe current punishments for a given crime insufficient should
seek to alter the law, whereas exorbitant forfeiture devalues the entire
purpose - it serves neither as effective discouragement (being utterly
arbitrary and unrelated to criminal magnitude) nor to rehabilitate (rather,
the reverse, as departing inmates' tendencies to return will only be
exacerbated by forfeiture-induced poverty).

~~~
da_chicken
> The car was reliably documented as being purchased from his father's life
> insurance proceeds. There was no question of it being potentially purchased
> by illegal means.

This is why it was such a perfect case for the Supreme Court to rule upon. It
was clear that the only justification the state could give for the
confiscation was the single conviction.

Cheers to Timbs for being willing to take this all the way to get such an
important ruling!

------
burtonator
What's frustrating here is that so much of our government depends on actual
case law.

This it's possible for massive injustice to happen for decades before we have
a resolution.

This is one of the reasons technology can be so frightening because there's no
case law and the rate of technology is exponential which means there is the
potential for GREAT evil to happen without any resolution except to fight it
out and get it in front of the Supreme course.

~~~
repiret
The alternative to case law is that ambiguities in the statute are interpreted
differently each time. Being subject to the law, I would much rather live in a
system designed to automatically reduce ambiguities over time, rather than to
have to wait for the legislature to have the political will and resources to
address them.

~~~
jrockway
The executive branch can also help here. Someone can run for district
attorney, say "my office won't use civil forfeiture", and it's gone.

What is scary is that that's not the platform people run on, or win elections
by running on.

~~~
Fellshard
That's even more arbitrary, and won't solve the problem, as the next
administration can reintroduce it. It's a temporary patch of the problem, and
is technically also an abdication of the executive from their assigned role.

~~~
hannasanarion
Nobody said it solves the problem. The point is that it helps.

Also, "I am not going to use an unjust power that I have" is hardly an
abdication of their role, it's just a choice made using the power of the
office.

~~~
Fellshard
The problem is that it's /not/ a power they have, and ought to be shut down by
the judicial ASAP. The only reason it's not is because it's not been
prosecuted for prior administrations, and has become a pattern of laxity,
allowing the legislative to claim to wash their hands of culpability when a
law they stand for in public isn't acted on in private.

------
rtkwe
Hmm I wonder how this will affect the other civil forfeiture practice of
charging the item itself with the crime (eg: "United States v. $124,700 in
U.S. Currency" [0]) where the owner of the property is never actually charged
with a crime. Maybe this will stop that because without a conviction any fine
could be considered excessive?

The logic behind these cases has always baffled me. How do courts get around
due process requirements of seizing claimed property like that?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency)

~~~
sbuttgereit
This specific case was taken and argued by the Institute for Justice
([https://ij.org](https://ij.org)), a civil liberties legal charity, that has
a goal of addressing exactly this problem.

The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of
"the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall. The rationale was you had drug
dealer types that were successfully evading prosecution on the tougher
criminal standards of proof while also flaunting the wealth they obtained from
their drug related businesses. So the idea was you could have a civil process
with a lower standard of proof than the criminal ones with which could punish
them.

Of course, as the old saying goes, "the path to hell is paved with good
intentions." and you get cases like this or worse even.

I contribute to the Institute for Justice for just this reason.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of
> "the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall.

No, they were in admiralty/customs law and predate the US, but came along with
the body of law the US kept at it's founding.

There was some new activity around Prohibition.

Then big activity starting in 1970 around the drug war.

(That's for federal civil forfeiture, while state level civil forfeiture has
the same pre-US history, the later evolution varies by state.)

~~~
sbuttgereit
Fair enough.

The big push in my lifetime was the big push around drugs. My family was
involved in politics in the early 80's (I was fairly young at the time). I
recall a lot of "get tough" political talk around that time and some touting
establishment/expansion of civil forfeiture for these purposes.

In truth, while understanding the history is important, I think that is
ultimately secondary to what needs to be done with it now. It's a backdoor to
punitive recourse that bypasses legitimate interests of criminality and due
process. It's an abomination.

------
ThrustVectoring
Non-paywalled press release from the Institute for Justice, who worked on this
case as part of their mission to fight civil forfeiture:
[https://ij.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-
unanimo...](https://ij.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-unanimously-
that-states-cannot-impose-excessive-fines/)

~~~
chapium
"Ruling Requires Cities and States—Not Just the Federal Government— To Abide
by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause"

Wow, this is pretty big. They just extended constitutional protection of this
clause to lower levels of government.

~~~
duxup
It seems to be a pattern where protections aren't extended until a state or
some government gets silly and the courts just decide that it is absurd to not
have the same protection at that level and extends it.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Yeah, that's an issue with how the US justice system works, and a natural
tradeoff from the other properties it has. The legal system works off of
precedent and cannot write law, so there's no binding opinion until and unless
it comes up in a legal case. Also, you have to be harmed by a law in order to
have standing to challenge it. So as long as people aren't getting harmed by
the lack of an "obvious" legal conclusion, the courts will basically just let
it sit there until someone comes and challenges it, whereupon the "yeah,
that's absurd, we're going to give a unanimous Supreme Court decision on this"
comes into effect.

Sometimes it gets into a weird dynamic where the lower court _knows_ that the
Supreme Court would overturn their decision, but there isn't precedent, so
they deliberately make a ruling that they expect the Supreme Court to review
(and overturn) on appeal.

------
gumby
BTW, if you have civil forfeiture at all (which I think should't exist), why
does the money go to the seizing agency? Shouldn't it all go straight to the
general fund to avoid a conflict of interest?

Ditto punitive damages in court cases (where the defendent pays, say, $3M in
restitution but say $500M in punitive damages because they could easily afford
the $3M and need to suffer enough to change their ways). Why doesn't that
money go into the government general fund?

~~~
kgwxd
Also agree it shouldn't exist, but if there were a general fund, it shouldn't
go towards funding any government agencies even in a distributed fashion.
Maybe credit it out to all tax payers?

~~~
el_benhameen
If it gets credited out to taxpayers, I would expect any public pressure to
get rid of civil asset forfeiture to disappear very quickly.

------
dba7dba
What I'd like to know is if private property that was seized in the past will
be returned?

One of my friend's dad had a hip surgery and was bed bound for a few weeks.
The family had to be at work so they hired a live in helper who was an older
woman in her 60s.

This older woman's story was a tragic one to hear.

She had immigrated from Asia to US with her husband and family and had managed
to buy a 3bed house. Well life happened and they ended up divorcing in her
60s, and she ended up as owner of the house.

With no income and no real skill, she rented out rooms in her house to pay
bills. One renter was a drug dealer. When he was arrested, somehow the lady
was dragged into the case and she ended up losing the house to the police, due
to this seizure of private property. This was the first time I heard about
such practices.

With no house and no other choices, she had to turn to working as a live-in-
helper to avoid becoming homeless.

I hope all properties seized through such cases are returned.

~~~
moftz
The landlord is supposed to proceed with eviction if a crime occurs on their
property. The police will even tell the landlord that if they don't evict,
they will seize the house under "nuisance laws".

~~~
icebraining
Which is insane, because the police shouldn't be putting people in harm's way
by pushing them to piss off drug dealers who have the keys to their homes!

~~~
moftz
The Sheriff's Office can be requested to serve evictions that might not go
easy.

------
cryptonector
Finally! Joyful day!

I've not read all of the decision yet, but it seems that any decision about
retroactivity was left for later. That will now lead to a bunch of fun cases
where plaintiffs demand their property and monies back, and the cities and
States will have a hard time ponying it up. Localities and States that play
fast and loose with the Constitution should pay a steep price when it later
turns out that the SCOTUS gets to make the obvious ruling. That will teach the
cities and States to not violate the Constitution willy-nilly. It was obvious
to anyone who bothered to read the Constitution and Incorporation case law
that civil asset forfeiture was on very thin ice, both, as a matter of
jurisprudence, and as a matter of plain reading of the Constitution.

------
downandout
It will be interesting to see exactly how this ruling is applied in the field.
My guess is that not much will change, as the most problematic and widespread
applications of civil forfeiture don’t involve a crime where a monetary fine
would be allowed as a penalty. Rather, the police simply steal (they prefer
the term “seize,” but it’s just stealing) the money/assets claiming that they
suspect it to be the fruit of a crime, then hope the person they stole it from
does not have the resources necessary to hire an attorney to recover it.
Charges are not filed, and in the majority of cases, the victims never get the
money back.

IANAL, but at first glance it seems that such cases would be unaffected by
this ruling. No fine is being imposed that could be considered excessive under
this ruling - the person is simply failing to claim their property.

~~~
rtkwe
It seems like those cases should be because if there's no crime filed against
a person related to the case there's no fine to assess in the first place so
any 'fine' (read asset forfeiture) is excessive because it's >$0. Very much
not a lawyer but the logic seems to hold.

The whole asset forfeiture without any charges being filed always seemed
really sketchy because in the end you're still taking assets from a person (so
long as they're claimed, eg maybe if they find a pile of money in an abandoned
drug lab a seizure would be valid if no one comes forward saying it's theirs
at which point they should charge the person with crimes and seize the money
after trial).

------
theonemind
Naming the property as a suit defendent seems like pure legal sophistry. The
whole civil forfeiture scheme should run afoul of the the 4th amendment
against unreasonable search and seizure.

Originally, they had the phrase "life, liberty, and property", if I recall,
but "happiness" sounded more poetic or something in the Declaration of
Independence. They definitely had protection of property from the government
in mind when writing the Constitution.

~~~
aero142
The only argument I have heard is that it was useful for prosecuting property
where no owner will claim it, or the owner is unavailable for prosecution
because they are not in the country. Imagine a drug cartel shipped a large
pile of cash to the US and it was seized. I could imagine it might make sense
to have US vs. Big Pile of Cash because the cartel isn't going to claim it and
you could prove it was likely part of the drug trade. IMHO it went sideways as
soon as it was used when an owner was available.

~~~
caf
This argument doesn't even fly. In the case that the owner is unknown you
could simply file a suit against John Doe, Unidentified Owner of Big Pile Of
Cash.

------
ozzyman700
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf)

Here is the ruling in full if anyone is interested.

------
sbr464
Listen and read the oral argument here (oyez):

—edited, correct case:

[https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio...](https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio/24777)

~~~
kzrdude
The date is 1993, so it seems to be an older case?

~~~
sbr464
Corrected, thanks.

------
Isamu
Good thing, it only took about 35 years or so. This was one of legacies of the
glorious War On Drugs.

~~~
arenaninja
I guess my thinking is how does this affect the funding for Trump's wall. IIRC
about $2.5billion was supposed to come from DoD drug seizures... this case
seems highly relevant

~~~
moate
It likely doesn't.

My assumption would be that those seizures would have already had to pass the
constitutional muster because they were federal cases. This is simply the SC
stating that they interpret the constitution as being the law of the land, and
that the states can't be more punitive than the feds. That money will still be
there.

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
What is scary is that something like the Patriot Act can be signed in
overnight and something like this will take decades.

~~~
lostapathy
The interesting thing, though, is that once a civil right is established and
incorporated against the states, it's basically unassailable under our system.
So while it takes a long time to get those rights properly enshrined, at least
they seem to be safe.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>So while it takes a long time to get those rights properly enshrined, at
least they seem to be safe.

Our rights are so unassailable that I need to repeatedly pay a non-negligible
amount of money to the government bear arms and get the approval of my local
police chief if I want said arms to be reasonably modern. /s

Some animals are more equal than others. Some rights are more unassailable
than others. At least I can bitch about it on the internet and nobody's
quartering troops in my home (edit: yet).

~~~
lostapathy
Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment hasn't even been incorporated against the
states for 10 years yet (McDonald v Chicago). So while the right has been
incorporated, the court has yet to really rule on the scope of what that
means.

Just 10 years ago, it wasn't clear that you as an individual actually had that
right, as it pertains to state restrictions - things have certainly improved.

Edit: I guess my original point I failed to make is that the courts have
actually affirmed less rights than most people realize, but when they do
(finally) do so, they tend to stick around.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
I suspect that nothing will change until the court rules that some form of
scrutiny stricter than the status quo needs to be applied before curtailing
the 2nd before that ruling will have any teeth. Incorporation means nothing
without strict or intermediate scrutiny because states can just do whatever
they want in the name of some nebulous concept like "public safety".

~~~
lostapathy
There are numerous cases in lower courts attempting just that!

------
AnimalMuppet
This is good.

Even better: It's a unanimous decision. The Supreme Court is not even _close_
to thinking that this was OK.

(Yes, Thomas agreed with the decision, though he wanted to state that he got
there by a different route. That's not bad - it gives two distinct reasons why
the ruling is correct, which is better than just one.)

------
Splendor
This article has left me confused. Does this mean civil forfeiture is
unconstitutional? Or just that it can only be used if it does not constitute
an "excessive" fine?

~~~
lallysingh
Only if it's not excessive.

~~~
Splendor
How disappointing. This leaves individuals forced to prove that a fine was
excessive after police have already seized their property.

~~~
Aloha
This is largely a straightforward thing to do - and this ruling will make
police departments much more hesitant to seize civil assets.

~~~
neonate
Is it straightforward to do without a lawyer, though? What if you can't afford
one?

~~~
Aloha
The decision from the supreme court will change when police try to attach to
money, it will no longer be a straightforward matter to do so, and is much
more likely to be attached to a criminal case now - which means a lawyer would
be involved.

------
TomMckenny
>The court had, however, previously ruled that most protections under the Bill
of Rights apply to the states

>...the Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Timbs, saying that the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to ones imposed by
states.

Does anyone know which rights people assume they have but don't because the
protection only applies on the federal level?

~~~
tarjm
The 3rd (quartering of soldiers) and 7th (jury trial for civil cases)
Amendments have not been incorporated at all, as well as parts of the 5th
(Grand Jury indictment) and 6th (jury from the location of the crime).

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine)

~~~
acheron
The 3rd was incorporated against the State of New York by the Second Circuit
court of appeals, it just has never reached the Supreme Court.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey)

------
jedberg
My favorite site on Supreme Court cases:
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1091](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1091)

Sadly they haven't updated with the decision yet.

------
exabrial
Thank goodness. Overly aggressive local, state, and national prosecutors need
a reality check.

------
dmitrygr
Best part is Gorsuch's half-page long concurring opinion which places Indiana
in its place with a wonderful last sentence: "But nothing in this case turns
on that question, and, regardless of the precise vehicle, there can be no
serious doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect the
freedom from excessive fines enshrined in the Eighth Amendment. "

Thomas is not far behind with: " As a constitutionally enumerated right
understood to be a privilege of American citizenship, the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition on excessive fines applies in full to the States. "

------
make3
This sounds so insane to me: "In fiscal year 2018, state and local agencies
received $400 million through this arrangement, known as equitable sharing.
The amount varied widely by agency — the Surprise Police Department in Arizona
received $570,000, while the Buffalo Police Department in upstate New York got
$130,000. The New York Police Department took in $7.8 million.

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."

------
lososos
Link to the opinion:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf)

Based on one very quick reading of the case, my understanding is:

1\. Defendant ("D") purchased a $42,000 Land Rover using funds from a life
estate policy covering the life of his now-deceased father.

2\. D sells $225 worth of heroin to undercover cops. Ends up paying ~$1200 in
fines, one year on house arrest, 5 years probation

3\. Max penalty in Indiana for his crimes is $10,000

4\. Cops seize his Land Rover, arguing it was used in the performance of
selling heroin.

5\. He sues the State of Indiana, arguing that the seizure is an excessive
fine.

6\. Trial Court and Appellate Court rule in D's favor. Indiana Supreme Court
reverses. D appeals to US Supreme Court.

7\. Supreme Court rules that the 8th amendment protects against excessive
fines, and that because the rule against excessive fines is part of our
national history and tradition, the 14th Amendment makes that part of the 8th
amendment apply to the states. Further, excessive fines can be used for
silencing political enemies and income generation, rather than being a
legitimate part of the process of "retribution and rehabilitation" that we
want the justice system to provide. When a State's actions benefit the State,
the Court will carefully scrutinize those actions.

8\. State of Indiana tried to argue that while "excessive fines" are part of
the 8th amendment, it does not apply specifically to civil in rem forfeitures
(aka property seizure).

Supreme Court cites a case clarifying the way the analysis is done--only the
broad category of "excessive fines" is reviewed, rather than picking out very
specific instances of fines, like property seizure.

9\. This was a unanimous decision. Technically it was 7-0 with 2 concurring
opinions. The two concurrences were Gorsuch and Thomas, who both agreed with
the outcome, but said that a different part of the 14th amendment (privileges
and immunities) is what should be used, rather than what the other 7 relied on
(the due process clause).

10\. The case was remanded to Indiana Courts for rulings consistent with this
opinion. The Supreme Court answered only whether excessive fines, barred to
the US government by the 8th amendment, also applied to the States through the
14th amendment. It did not answer whether the seizure of the Land Rover was
actually excessive. Indiana will (get a chance) to decide that.

Based on my reading, it appears that the avenue for property seizure is based
upon fines defined by statute. To perform a civil asset seizure, a person must
be convicted of a crime. If they are convicted of a crime, the seizure must
not constitute an excessive fine. Is this how others interpreted the ruling?

~~~
amanaplanacanal
> To perform a civil asset seizure, a person must be convicted of a crime

This is very unclear to me. I can see how that could be read into the
decisions, but I don't think that's what they are actually saying.

------
shkkmo
I see a bunch of confusion here.

This case did not involve "civil forfeiture" but "criminal forfeiture" since
the property was being seized as part of a criminal conviction:

[https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-
forfeiture](https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture)

------
liamtk43
The more significant aspect of the ruling was Justice Thomas and Gorsuch's
concurring opinions, in which they emphasized that the Court's decision should
have been based on the "privileges and immunities” clause and not the due
process clause of Fourteenth Amendment.

------
masonic
Related article:

[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/20/court-
const...](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/20/court-
constitutional-ban-on-high-fines-applies-to-/)

------
m3kw9
It took this case to set a precedent, I’m sure there were other more high
crime to value ratio forfeitures. I’m glad this is in place because it was a
tactic used by low life’s to take someone’s house by slapping on a small
criminal offense on someone

------
discordance
"Law enforcement agencies have resisted efforts to curtail civil forfeiture,
saying they rely on the proceeds for sorely needed equipment"

Weird weird reasoning... "I don't have the stuff I want, so I should be able
to steal the thieves things"

------
ComputerGuru
One of the most important things about this rule is that the court found that
the eighth amendment protections against excessive fines and punishments apply
to state/city governments as well, meaning it's finally officially
incorporated.

~~~
cletus
For anyone reading this, it's known as the doctrine of Incorporation [1].
Portions of the Bill of Rights are "incorporated" when it's determined they
apply to the states (note: it can also be found the clauses don't apply to the
states and this is known as Reverse Incorporation).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights)

------
noarchy
How is it that some articles, like this one, manage to stay on the front page
for more than a day, while others (which seem to be popular, based on points
and comments) seemingly vanish within hours? Is the human intervention in
these rankings stronger than I realize?

Edit: I'm not opposed to this article's longevity, by the way. Far from it, it
is a very important topic.

------
vasilipupkin
there are only two truly valuable and scarce commodities in this universe:
time and the rule of law. The hegemony of Unites States( and other countries
with similar attitude towards law ) lies not its army or the dollar - but in
the fact that at its core it is ruled by law. this 9-0 verdict is proof of it.

------
gwbas1c
No paywall: [https://raidargist.com/supreme-court-puts-limits-on-
police-p...](https://raidargist.com/supreme-court-puts-limits-on-police-power-
to-seize-private-property/)

------
daveheq
Stop linking paywall articles.

------
edhowzerblack
paywall

------
gnicholas
Dupe of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19209206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19209206)

~~~
dang
You're right, but that article is somehow more narrowly scoped, which probably
explains why this one got upvoted so quickly. Given that difference, maybe
we'll keep this one.

------
binarymax
Please don't editorialize the title. It should be _" Supreme Court Puts Limits
on Police Power to Seize Private Property"_

~~~
ceejayoz
I think the NYT updated the title. Unfortunately,
[http://newsdiffs.org/](http://newsdiffs.org/) seems to be broken right now.

~~~
rc_kas
Holy cow, what a website. Those people are saints for running that website.

------
suika_hacker
this is amazing

------
Cyclone_
I'm not terribly concerned with this particular seizure from the drug dealer
the case is about, but glad it sets a precedent for other cases where police
may try and abuse power to pick on citizens.

~~~
jakelazaroff
Why not this case, in which police abused their power to pick on a citizen?

~~~
Cyclone_
Perhaps because it's a citizen who was able to afford the expensive car by
profiting off of something illegal?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
He didn't. He afforded the expensive car _by his father dying_. (That is, he
used the life insurance proceeds to buy the car.)

