
SCOTUS Rejects Guilty Until Proven Innocent – Can't Keep Money from the Innocent - rrauenza
https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/05/02/supreme-court-rejects-guilty-until-proven-innocent-says-states-cannot-keep-money-from-the-innocent/#5e2b6fa471f6
======
jdc0589
Does this have any implications for the ridiculous seizures of property police
carry out every now and then when they pull someone over who has a large
amount of cash on them?

The whole idea of a court case titled, e.g., "State of Texas vs $45,000" is
asinine. I'd love to see the SCOTUS lay down the law on that bullshit.

~~~
anigbrowl
Edit: forgot to say that no, this won't have a direct bearing on civil asset
forfeiture of the kind you describe, because that only takes place where the
identity of the property owner is unknown. The result in terms of not allowing
the state to take money from people whose criminal convictions are overturned
is great though.

\--

The idea is not asinine, it's perfectly rational.

Cops do a drug bust and all the criminals flee. (I'm personally opposed to
drug prohibition but it's the law and the easiest example so I'm going with
that for simplicity's sake.)

At the scene: 3 bricks of cocaine and $1m dollars. Cocaine is contraband so
the cops don't need permission to take it, they can just help themselves to a
few fat rails and then throw the rest in a furnace, resell it, or whatever.

What about the million bucks? It's property. there might even be a legitimate
reason for it to be there (eg suppose it had just been stolen from a bank but
the cops had yet to connect the bank robbery with the drug deal). The cops
can't just take it, because if that was allowed then cops could just help
themselves to any property they see and how would people ever know what
happened to it? OK, so there must be some sort of process to document their
taking possession of it until said possession is successfully challenged.
That's a court's job.

On one side, the state entity that employs the cops. On the other...who? The
(presumed) drug dealers fled so it's not obvious who the other side of the
case should be. American law is built from the ground up around adversarial
argument between parties with conflicting interests, so for administrative
convenience we'd like to have the case be 'Someone v. someone else' like every
other legal case. If we don't know who, let's treat the unclaimed property as
its own entity until someone says different. Hence 'State of Jurisdiction v.
$1 million.'

Practically speaking, this works fine most of the time. If you keep up with
legal case news, in any port city you'll see a lot of cases like 'US Customs
v. 1000 leather handbags' \- sometimes because the handbags in question are
knockoffs, sometimes because the paperwork got lost and a shipment ended up in
the wrong place, to be later claimed by the rightful owner with documentation.

Asset seizure by police has been abused to hell and back, and I have no
hesitation in saying that many police officers and institutions are corrupt.
But the legal mechanism for classifying abandoned property is not the problem.
That's a purely administrative convenience that is entirely neutral in nature.
If you didn't have it, then cops would just label the money as 'evidence', it
would disappear, and the problem would be worse because there wouldn't even be
a paper trail to follow.

~~~
dv_dt
Civil forfeiture is very much not limited to when the property owner is
unknown. That is perhaps where the practice started in some distant past, but
forfeiture has expanded to include the seizing of property as long as there is
a pretence of a crime, but no conviction nor usually even an arrest.

Here's a some search hits under "civil forfeiture cases"

[1] NFL defensive tackle Letroy Guion was stopped and had 190k of cash seized.
He had bank statements to prove the provenance of the money.

[2] Overview of cases and depts sued for systematically seizing cash from
people stopped, but never charged with a crime.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/civil-asset-
forfeit...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/civil-asset-forfeiture-
cash-money_n_6623972.html)

[2]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/cops-
use-traffic-stops-to-seize-millions-from-drivers-never-charged-with-a-
crime/#6ff553ddf54b)

~~~
anigbrowl
I am not defending the _practice_ of civil forfeiture, and I said so, though
obviously not clearly enough.

I was explaining the operational legal reason for the existence of court cases
in which one of the parties is an an inanimate object, nothing more.

~~~
dv_dt
Apologies if I overemphasized one portion of your comment. I actually thought
it was informative, but think it lacked that one critical element of conflict
in the practice as a whole. I now think I understand what you meant in the
phrase "the identity of the property owner is unknown" is that this is an
assumption under which the theory of the laws of forfeiture is operating.

Can you perhaps expand on why this assumption hasn't been successfully
challenged as a basis for overturning many of these other cases where there
clearly is a property owner? That's the head scratcher to me in how long this
practice has continued.

~~~
anigbrowl
As I said (but should probably have said at the beginning rather than the end)
I think the use of civil forfeiture in practice is frequently horribly
corrupt. While the basic idea has merit - we don't want criminals to profit
from ill-gotten gains - the application of that principle frequently turns
into an asymmetrical and highly politicized contest between who can better
manipulate the rules, to the point of drastically undermining respect for the
principles they were established to uphold.

I'm sorry that I don't always make it clear enough when I'm making a narrow
technical argument vs when I'm making a sweeping ideological one. I am 100%
against police departments being able to profit from civil asset forfeiture,
both because the incentives for abuse become overwhelming and because the
existence of abuse is then used by others as a pretext for undermining the
system within which such rules originate.

My personal concepts of the relation between individuals, society, government,
law, and justice, are radically outside the mainstream, which is why you
should consider switching to a monarchy and installing me as King, or Queen.
On the other hand, distilling those radical ideas down to a manageable set of
operational principals that don't require everyone to be a philosopher is
difficult, which is why you should probably hold off on the coronation for a
bit.

------
pc86
Who dissented? I would be interested in reading the dissent and seeing if it
was based off of some technicality of this case, or a belief that requiring
someone to prove their innocence wasn't a violation of their Constitutional
rights.

~~~
sswaner
Part of Thomas's dissent seems based in the fact that Nelson and Madden had
been convicted, so at that point in time the state was entitled to those fees,
and that the fees went into the public pool. The later overturn of convictions
didn't change the fact that the state was at one point entitled.

Thomas: "It does not follow, however, that petitioners have a property right
in the money they paid pursuant to their then-valid convictions, which now
belongs to the State and the victims under Colorado law."[1]

I believe in the value of a diverse court, but I rarely agree with the logic
of Clarence Thomas.

[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf)

~~~
kristofferR
How can you possibly agree with that? If overturned convictions are still
financially valid then you have no de facto right of appeal (in financial
disputes).

~~~
kybernetikos
It's not so much that they are financially valid, it's whether you consider
the money to have been taken by the state, and that it should compensate you
for the money it took, or if your money is being held by the state, and it
should return it.

If you consider that it should compensate you for the money it took off you,
then Colorado has a law on the books governing the compensation process, which
Thomas (and the previous court - the Colorado Supreme Court) thinks you should
follow.

The majority opinion seems to be that not quickly returning (and it considered
it as _returning_ rather than compensating) the innocent parties property
offends their right to due process.

~~~
benchaney
The entire premise of appellate courts (and by extension the Supreme Court) is
that if the government does something wrong it should be reversed. Ignoring
this fundamental truth seems completely insane.

------
rayiner
The article does a piss-poor job of actually framing the issue that was
decided: [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nelson-v-
colorado](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nelson-v-colorado). In
particular, the article's characterization of the question presented is so
hand-wavy that it makes the dissent seem incomprehensible.

To understand Thomas's logic, start with Section I of the dissent:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf).
Thomas is not saying that the state should be able to "keep money from the
innocent." Thomas's reasoning is roughly the following:

1) The 14th amendment requires the government to give you adequate process
before depriving you of a property right.

2) At the time petitioner was convicted, he paid over a sum of money to the
state. He lost the property right in that money, and the state gained the
property right in that money.

3) After the conviction was overturned on appeal, the state required
petitioner to go through a process to get his money back. Petitioner alleges
that the process was inadequate under the 14th amendment.

4) To make a 14th amendment deprivation claim, you have to show deprivation of
a property right. At the time petitioner sought his money back, _he had no
property right_. That transferred to the state under step (2).

5) Thomas asks: where is the property right that is the basis for the 14th
amendment claim? It can't come from the 14th amendment itself, because that
only comes into play once petitioner has a property right.

To get around (5), you can theorize that the initial payment automagically
become null-and-void when the conviction was vacated. But that would be an
unusual result, because legal judgments don't ordinarily have that kind of
effect. Say you buy some property, then sue the seller and get a judgment
saying you overpaid. You can assert that judgment against the seller to
collect, but at most the judgment means the seller _owes you money back_ , it
does not automatically transfer the property right in some of the money you
paid back to you.

I think the majority is right in that the overall effect of the Colorado law
would be a due process violation. But the majority's reasoning kind of
requires thinking of the whole process as a black box and not thinking too
hard about what happens inside.

~~~
nialo
Asking because I don't understand:

What's the difference between the seller owing me money back and me having a
property right in that money? They seem similar to my not-at-all-a-lawyer
intuition, what am I missing?

~~~
rayiner
The former is a debt you have the right to collect from the seller. The latter
is actual ownership of the money. _E.g._ if you're behind on your cell phone
bill, you owe the company money, but they don't automatically have a property
right in your bank account.

------
ars
I don't understand this:

> Ali had previously sold the Chevy but still held title to it and it was
> registered in his name ..... In order to regain his Chevy, Ali was asked to
> prove his innocence.

Why does he need to regain "his" Chevy? It said he sold it, so it's not his
anymore. Just the title transfer was not registered yet (which in my state is
pretty common, especially for junk cars, since the state charges a fee and
sales tax to record the transfer).

~~~
mikhailt
In certain states, the title proves the transfer (sale) of the vehicle.

I didn't read the whole article, the paywall is blocking it but if there is no
legal document to prove the sale has taken place, then the car still belongs
to the name on the title, regardless of what happened. In other words, it
doesn't matter if he got paid 10K for the car, if the purchaser don't have any
documents, he is SOL.

~~~
FireBeyond
Well, yes and no. The purchaser would certainly have a civil claim against him
for breach of contract.

I'm not sure how Ali even got involved in this, other than a chance to fuck
someone over who had little recourse.

------
rhizome
A little more of an educated take from a couple weeks ago:

[http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/opinion-analysis-states-
ca...](http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/opinion-analysis-states-cant-keep-
money-collect-pursuant-subsequently-overturned-convictions/)

------
Neliquat
This is a huge step forwards. I only hope asset forfiture is next.

~~~
openasocket
I'm confused as to why it hasn't yet. There have been complaints about civil
asset forfeiture since like the '90s? How has a case not been challenged and
gone to the Supreme Court yet? Or has it gone already, and been upheld? I
honestly don't understand how civil asset forfeiture can be constitutional,
and I'd like to hear someone give any kind of argument otherwise.

~~~
Spooky23
It's tough because the legal theory is established and sound depending on your
point of view. It arises from maritime law around contraband and ships.

The problem is that the scope of how it's implemented today is much larger and
more impactful. The result is that we have policy at the Federal level that
effectively criminalizes cash. Because the legal foundation is sound, it is
difficult for the courts to act -- we really need changes in law. That's why
law originates from the Congress... to check the executive.

------
davrosthedalek
It was a 7:1 vote. Is there a resource to look up how individual judges voted?

~~~
ambulancechaser
oyez.org will have the votes. Justice Thomas dissented and Justice Alito
concurred in the result but not in the argument.

[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/581/15-1256/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/581/15-1256/)
is the opinion,
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1256](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1256)
has recorded oral argument, opinions and summaries. Good reddit thread
[https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/690jb0/scotus_rules_71...](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/690jb0/scotus_rules_71_that_acquitted_defendants_are/)
with a biased title but good discussion.

~~~
iaw
I'm kind of stupid about the SCOTUS, what does it mean that "Alito concurred
in the result but not in the argument?"

Edit: Thank you for the explanations, especially the fact that they aren't
strict yes-no votes (that makes a ton of sense now).

~~~
belovedeagle
SCOTUS rulings are not yes-no votes. There are any number of opinions written
and justices who took part in the case (usually all of them) will sign on to
one of these opinions, while sometimes noting that they largely agree with
another one. I didn't look up this particular case but usually that sentence
means that there were at least two opinions written: one agreed by a
plurality, one by Alito, and zero or more additional opinions (at least one if
there were any dissents). It means that Alito's opinion amounted to the same
yes-no answer(s) as the majority but he was unwilling to say he agreed with
their actual written opinion.

~~~
iaw
Thank you for this explanation, that makes a lot of sense.

A priori civil forfeiture goes against this countries values but the legal
logic in the majority opinion seems like it has some problematic aspects which
is why Thomas dissented and Alito agreed but with stipulations.

------
OliverJones
Sarah Stillman wrote up civil forfeiture in The New Yorker in the summer of
2013. John Oliver's TV piece on the topic must have drawn heavily from this
article.

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken)

------
inlined
> Ali had previously sold the Chevy but still held title to it and it was
> registered in his name. When the buyer was arrested for a DWI and drug
> possession, police seized the truck and filed a civil forfeiture action
> against it, even though Ali was not involved. In order to regain his Chevy,
> Ali was asked to prove his innocence.

If Ali sold the car but kept the title what the heck did he "sell"? This
sounds like a poor defense against civil forfeiture. It seems like he'd have
to claim he cheated the person he sold the car in order to assert ownership. I
wouldn't want to touch that case either.

------
felipelemos
What surprises me is - even for just 1 vote against - it was not a unanimous
decision.

~~~
dragonwriter
It would surprise me, if the dissenter wasn't Thomas.

------
wu-ikkyu
Does this mean police can't legally steal your money anymore?

~~~
greensoap
It may have implications for civil forfeiture practices. But the case was
about when the state holds onto restitution money even after a conviction is
overturned. So it probably won't change civil forfeiture practice in the near
term.

~~~
djsumdog
Right, and forfeiture doesn't always involve a guilty conviction. Say a kid
uses his mom's car to commit a crime. He could have taken it without her
permission (stolen it) and now it becomes part of the crime. There was a real
case posted on HN a few months back like this.

Now if someone had property taken and was later found innocent, would this
immediately release the property taken in that particular forfeiture without a
2nd civil court case?

------
justinclift
Wonder if Kim Dot Com's legal team would be able to make use of this in their
ongoing US legal saga?

~~~
djsumdog
He would have to be extradited (they're still trying to fight that in NZ), be
put on trial, and then win. Even then, this seems to only cover the legal
fees. He'd still have to sue the State for the loss of all the servers, taken
from him in a country he had never set foot in.

