
U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case - wcbeard10
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/supreme-court-civil-asset-forfeiture.html
======
Someone1234
Civil Forfeiture is essentially "guilty until proven innocent." And I don't
mean that hyperbolically, I mean literally if the state takes property or cash
under Civil Forfeiture you have to prove your property innocent to get it
returned (via expensive civil litigation).

That means that they can seize property or cash under a certain value with
near impunity because the cost of recovering it is greater than the cost of
the goods themselves. This makes it a fantastic tool against the poor, since
they'll have no real remedies.

You only really started to hear about Civil Forfeiture once the police started
going too far and taking things from the wealthy or powerful, but they've been
at this for years, take vehicles from accused but un-prosecuted "drug
dealers."

~~~
RIMR
What's worse is they don't even need a shred of evidence to take your stuff.

In some states, having more than $10,000 in cash on your person is
automatically considered "evidence of criminal activity". That means that the
police, just by seeing that you have more than $10k in cash, can simply seize
it and then force you to spend your time and additional money proving that the
money didn't come from crime.

And, of course, every cent of the cash they take goes to their own department,
so they are incentivized to look for cash during traffic stops just so they
can literally commit highway robbery...

It's also not unusual for an officer to record that they found $15k in cash,
only for the person they seized it from to call foul, stating that they had
more. Since there is literally nothing protecting the citizen in this
situation, they are left without any legal remedy, and the cop gets to pocket
your cash for his own illicit purposes.

This is a system that encourages corruption with the justification of profit.

~~~
slowburning
In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices
using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g.
cash, jewelry, confidential information)

~~~
VectorLock
Which states?

~~~
arwineap
OH and CA both have laws on the books against creating (hidden compartment) or
operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment if it's intended for something
illegal. Drugs and guns is the common justification, but I wonder what would
happen if you had say 15k in cash in a compartment.

~~~
smrtinsert
Dont. Excessive free cash is very typically seized.

~~~
djrogers
I don’t think we have enough data to say it’s ‘very typically seized’ -
certainly it is at times, and in egregious and outrageous fashion, but I don’t
think ‘very typically’ is accurate.

I personally have on many occasions had well in excess of 10,000 on my person
and have never had it seized.

~~~
lostcolony
And you were pulled over, and it was discovered?

I mean, even if you were, that constitutes X data points, which is hardly
representative.

~~~
topmonk
You're asking him to prove a negative. The onus should be on you.

~~~
mannykannot
Not at all - one can very reasonably assume that 'very frequently' means after
it has been discovered during a traffic stop, in which case it is valid to ask
how often djrogers has been in that situation.

~~~
uxp
A mostly unrelated and offtopic comment: It's been a misconception that the
$20 and $100 U.S. Dollar bills contain some RFID-like passive tracking
capability embedded within the "ribbon" security feature. If you want to have
an expensive and uneventful couple minutes, put a $20 in a microwave for a few
seconds to "disable" the chip, but be sure to have a cup of water around. The
foil-beanie wearing crowd claims that the result of the microwaving, which
burns Jackson's face, is proof. Nevermind the actual fact that a majority of
the ink on the front of the bill is on Jackson's face, and that the ink
contains metal used for pigmenting and other proprietary security measures
which is likely the reason it smolders or catches fire first.

Anyways, the reason I bring this up is to highlight the paranoia of some that
think that long-range RFID scanners can actually locate large stacks of highly
valuable "untraceable" currency, which might be used by the highway patrol to
identify potential targets to pull over for civil asset forfeiture reasons.

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-
check/cache-point/)

~~~
gonesilent
The stacks of cash with the ribbon and magnetic ink can be scanned for. Think
of those plastic and metal ribbon security stickers stores use.

------
ccleve
What bothers me about the article is that they say that the basis of the claim
is the 8th Amendment ("excessive fines"). I hope that is not the only argument
the lawyers made.

The problem with relying on the 8th alone is that the word "excessive" is
imprecise, and there's good reason for the Supreme Court to defer to local
legislatures to define what it means, except in extreme cases. Deciding
criminal penalties are normally within the powers of the state.

I think the more important amendment is the 5th: ("nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation."). This "takings" clause
is what civil forfeiture is all about.

The 5th Amendment has been fully incorporated, and is binding on the states:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine)

In cases where there is no rational connection to a crime (and there are many
such cases), the taking can in no way be construed as a fine.

If you look at the 5th and the 8th together to try to divine the intent of the
founders, it's clear that they were trying to limit government overreach of
exactly this kind. This case should be a slam dunk.

~~~
jaredklewis
Mandatory disclaimer that I think civil forfeiture sucks.

While I agree with you personally, I think legally that would be very far from
a slam dunk case.

The situation in this case seems similar to the one in Bennis v. Michigan,
where SCOTUS already ruled that the civil forfeiture did not violate the
takings clause of the 5th amendment. So the 5A angle seems like a risky
argument.

On the other hand, the waters surrounding the 8th amendment are very murky. As
recounted in the Indiana SC decision, their basis for determining that the
excessive fines clause is unincorporated comes from the 2010 McDonald
decision, a case that had nothing to do with the 8th amendment at all. It was
only mentioned in passing, so this was not a holding but merely dictum. SCOTUS
had previously said in dictum that the excessive fines clause was
incorporated. So there hasn't been a full holding, plus two contradictory
dictums in a relatively short period. That's fairly murky, whereas Bennis vs
Michigan is basically clear with regards to the 5th amendment.

~~~
ccleve
Good catch.

I just read the opinion in Bennis. The core of it is that the state may take
property if the use of the property constitutes a public nuisance. If a ship
is used for piracy or drug running, for example, then it can be taken.

In Bennis, there was a car jointly owned by a husband and a wife. The husband
used the car with a prostitute. The wife didn't know. The question before the
court was if the state's taking of the car violated the wife's 5th amendment
rights, because she owned half of it and had nothing to do with the crime.
Almost the entirely of the opinion concerned whether an innocent owner could
have property taken if the property had been used to commit a crime by someone
else. The court held that yes, it could, and that wasn't a violation of the
5th amendment.

Most of these civil forfeiture cases can be distinguished because the property
taken usually wasn't used in the commission of a crime. People have had large
amounts of cash taken from them even though they did nothing more than run a
red light or drive too fast. In that case, the money can hardly been seen as
having been an instrument of the crime.

It's unfortunate that in this particular case, the druggie did use his car to
transport and to buy and sell drugs. This isn't the best case to challenge
civil asset forfeiture generally. Perhaps "excessive fines" is the best
they'll be able to do. Although if the court is really enlightened, they'll
distinguish between an asset which is primarily used for crime (a crack house
or a pirate ship) and one which is used only in passing (like this car).

~~~
jaredklewis
Yea, I agree that in Bennis, the focus is more on the wife's innocence and how
that should impact the case. Personally, I agree with Stevens in his dissent
that it has a huge impact, as the majority's logic taken to its conclusion
would justify all manner of absurdities. Stevens imagines the state seizing an
airline's jumbo jet should a single passenger (unaffiliated with the airline)
board it with drugs.

> Although if the court is really enlightened, they'll distinguish between an
> asset which is primarily used for crime (a crack house or a pirate ship) and
> one which is used only in passing (like this car).

Agreed. The connection between the cars and crimes in both of these cases in
incredibly tenuous.

The Stevens dissent in Bennis really rips the majority to pieces. I'm hopeful
Ginsburg and Thomas have grown more skeptical of civil forfeiture in the
interim, though I do wish our state and federal legislators would be a little
less useless and clean up the civil forfeiture legislation.

------
jedberg
What I've learned recently is that most people only read headlines when it
comes to Supreme Court cases, and the headlines are written to be
intentionally misleading. Most Supreme Court cases have a lot of nuance to
them that most people miss.

For example, in this thread, people keep saying that United States v. Ursery
upheld Civil Forfeiture, but it did no such thing. The case was about whether
CF is a criminal punishment for double-jeopardy, but it did not address the
legality of CF itself.

In this case, they are also not directly deciding on CF. They are deciding on
whether the 8th amendment applies to the States based on the 14th amendment.
If they decide that it does, then the case goes back to the Indiana Supreme
Court, who will have to decide if the fine is excessive, like the lower courts
found.

But every other civil forfeiture case will still have to argue in a court
whether the forfeiture counts as an excessive fine.

~~~
unholiness
You seem to have a more accurate perspective on this case than most of the
comments. Thank you for posting.

But I'm still confused on one point: It seems like the supreme court has
_already_ ruled that the 8th Amendment applies to the states in Roper v.
Simmons[0], Robinson v. California [1], and others. To me this pretty directly
means that a state law dictating a cruel and unusual punishment is
unconstitutional.

So if supreme court isn't deciding whether cruel and unusual punishments at
the state level are unconstitutional in general (a previous ruling), and it
isn't deciding whether this specific civil forfeiture was cruel and unusual (a
decision to be made by the state court), what exactly are they deciding? Is
there some unplugged hole in the middle, like whether any CF case (regardless
of details) could be cruel and unusual? Or is there some other reason that the
previous rulings don't apply here?

[0]
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633)

[1] [https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/554](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/554)

~~~
greenleafjacob
You can track the progress of the case through SCOTUSBlog [1] with associated
filings like the writ of certiorari [2]. The precise question presented in
this case is:

> Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated
> against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment

[1] [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-
indiana/](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-indiana/)

[2]
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180...](http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/33939/20180131162915070_Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20Timbs%20et%20al%20v%20State%20of%20Indiana.pdf)

------
archon
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.

~~~
downandout
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/...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/cops-
use-traffic-stops-to-seize-millions-from-drivers-never-charged-with-a-
crime/#32352dfdf54b)

~~~
UncleEntity
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.

~~~
downandout
_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](https://prnt.sc/jzcl8c)

[2] [https://www.forfeiture.gov](https://www.forfeiture.gov)

------
Meekro
It would be great to see the Supreme Court take up one of the more egregious
cases involving huge cash seizures from people with no criminal record, and
where there is no evidence that a crime took place. Unfortunately, most of
those are eventually settled by the government.

In this case there is little doubt that the target was dealing drugs,
prompting one judge to write that "one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt
from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the
legal consequences to which he exposes himself." The only issue is whether the
seizure was excessive, and there will always be judges who think that no
punishment is too great for a proven heroin dealer.

~~~
briandear
Even if they have a criminal record, that isn’t probable cause.

------
docker_up
The fact that this monstrosity of justice has continued, even under presidents
such as Obama, make me so angry and upset. It's exactly what happens when you
let the police do whatever they want, without someone to curtail their
behavior. Unfettered power equals unfettered corruption, and the fact this
keeps occurring in 2018 is astounding and upsetting.

~~~
smsm42
Obama never showed any desire to curtail executive powers. In fact, he was
championing exactly the opposite approach - that executive has the power to
produce new regulatory legislation and ignore existing legislation they don't
like, as soon as they perceive Congress does not do what they want it to do.
No wonder Obama did nothing for civil forfeiture reform - that would be the
exact opposite of his policy of infinite executive powers. His administration
was not just ignoring forfeiture abuse - it was actively encouraging it, e.g.
by means of infamous "equitable sharing" program, that allows the law
enforcement to directly profit from seized property:
[https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-
do...](https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-doj-sets-
back-justice-with-asset-forfeiture-program)

Saying forfeiture abuse proliferated "even under Obama" is like saying even
under Rod Blagojevich corruption proliferated in Illinois. Not exactly a
surprise.

~~~
docker_up
You would think a professor in Constitutional Law would be eager to plug a
whole that the police were taking advantage of, namely suing the money instead
of suing the person. Yet all there was was deafening silence. So disappointing
when people don't see things like this.

~~~
gamblor956
Obama eventually did plug the hole...

It wasn't that big of an issue until after the recession (i.e., during his
second term), so it simply wasn't on his radar while he dealt with more
pressing issues.

Moreover, civil forfeiture is allowed under federal law under very broad
terms. It took quite a bit of time after it became an issue to draft a policy
that would allow it to continue but end the excesses. Obama couldn't simply
stop enforcing the law because the GOP and various state/local law enforcement
agencies were prepared to sue in court to keep the gravy train going, and such
a lawsuit would have kept the practice fully legal until long after his second
term ended.

Indeed, Congress could have ended civil forfeiture immediately but simply
eliminating the law allowing for it. But GOP members of Congress blocked every
such attempt.

~~~
jmalicki
"Obama eventually did plug the hole..." citation?

~~~
gamblor956
[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-prohibits-
fe...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-prohibits-federal-
agency-adoptions-assets-seized-state-and-local-law)

~~~
jessaustin
That seems like _a portion_ of the hole, but probably not the whole hole?

~~~
gamblor956
He did what he had the power to do. Getting rid of the whole hole would have
required Congress to cooperate, which was a tall order when one party vowed
that it was its mission to guarantee his failure.

------
rconti
Judges Barnes' Appeals court dissent is perplexing:

> “I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have
> exercised in some of these cases,” Judge Barnes wrote. “Entire family farms
> are sometimes forfeited based on one family member’s conduct, or exorbitant
> amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals
> heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer,
> must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself.”

\---

He's, of course, well aware that the Land Rover is worth far more than the
maximum fine was for the crime, so that's not what he meant by "the legal
consequences to which he exposes himself". The only thing I can figure that he
means is basically "tough luck, forfeiture exists on the books, you've exposed
yourself to it, that's your bad." But saying "the law allows it" is hardly
helpful when the issue at hand is (apparently) whether or not the law is
constitutional. The only thing I can think is he felt his opinion was on the
narrow facts of the case and not the broader constitutionality, or that case
law had already settled this.

~~~
jessaustin
This seems like judge-speak for "I can't relate to this guy and I don't have
any sympathy for him, so screw him!"

------
amluto
I’m always surprised that civil forfeiture isn’t considered a violation of
both the fourth and fifth amendments. The fifth amendment says “nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation“, and the
fourth requires probably cause to seize property. Civil forfeiture is somehow
allowed without due process or probable cause. And the money kicks back to
police departments, which is a clear public use, and there is definitely no
just compensation.

------
defen
I think I understand the logic of civil forfeiture, but what is the
justification for seizing a $40,000 vehicle when the state has only proven
(according to the article) that he sold about $225 worth of drugs? It says he
plead guilty to one charge - was the other for a significantly larger amount,
that he was perhaps convicted of? Based on the info presented in the article
it would seem difficult to argue that he acquired the Land Rover with ill-
gotten funds.

~~~
logfromblammo
Article states that both the Land Rover _and_ the drugs were purchased using
the payout from a life insurance policy. It is unclear whether any of the
drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price.

As I recall, the whole concept of civil asset forfeiture was originally to
discourage crime by removing the profit from criminal activity when the
property was at hand, but the owner was outside the jurisdiction or otherwise
unreachable. The long history of forfeiture is mostly seizing the property
because the actual criminal was untouchable.

It has since morphed into cops acting as highwaymen to fund their activities
beyond the bounds of their regular budget. In this case, the alleged criminal
was actually charged, in custody, given due process criminally, and fined. The
cops, not satisfied with the fines already levied, stole his car, too.

In my non-lawyerly opinion, if the Supreme Court would like for forfeiture to
continue largely unchanged, they should reverse and return the guy's car, and
cite so many case specifics that this would be practically useless as
precedent. If they confirm, there is a chance that public backlash will
eliminate forfeiture through legislatures. If they reverse on principles
rather than specifics, that would set precedent easily usable by everyone
better respected than a heroin dealer. I hope for the latter, but I don't
think the current court has the right makeup to tear the filthy entrails out
of forfeiture.

~~~
defen
> Article states that both the Land Rover and the drugs were purchased using
> the payout from a life insurance policy. It is unclear whether any of the
> drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price.

Money is fungible, so I would be sympathetic to an argument that claimed he
had made in the vicinity of $40k from selling drugs (which could not be
confiscated for whatever reason, maybe he spent it all on drugs for his own
use or something) and so it was justified to seize his car.

But from the way it's described, I don't see why the state doesn't think it
can justify confiscating an arbitrarily large amount of property from a person
who has committed an arbitrarily small drug crime. e.g. if this guy owned a
$400,000 house and sold $20 worth of drugs out of it, can they take his house?

~~~
larkeith
By my limited understanding, I believe that they could, as there is no limit
akin to maximum fines with regards to civil forfeiture - as in this case,
where the maximum of $10k was circumvented. Moreover, it does not require
proof of guilt or a conviction, ripening its possibility for abuse.

~~~
logfromblammo
Well, there _is_ a constitutional limitation on excessive fines and
punishments. But the statutes typically don't specify.

They would allow seizure of one's shoes for jaywalking, and not just the shoes
the offender was wearing, but all those in his closet, too. The laws as
written are insufficiently protective against official abuse, so now that they
have become routinely abused, it would be wise to revise.

------
tbirrell
Unfortunately, in the past, the SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on
civil asset forfeiture cases. But since Justice Thomas has spoken against it,
I am cautiously optimistic that this might be the time that they rule in favor
of the citizen. Civil asset forfeiture has gotten way out of hand. We really
need some sort of precedent to start curbing the flagrant abuse we are seeing
all over the country.

~~~
rossdavidh
My thoughts exactly. Thomas is, clearly, more on the law-and-order side of the
current court, and his opinion (or the part of it quoted in this article
anyway) sounded pretty negative on the practice, at least as it currently
exists. It doesn't seem like he would have written in favor of taking the case
if he wanted to stay with the status quo. But, I am not a lawyer.

~~~
tathougies
To be fair, civil forfeiture is against the law, so being on the law-and-order
side is a good thing. Law-and-order also means applying law and order to the
government.

------
apo
It boggles the mind to think that forfeiture is alive and well today, some
police departments even brag about the state-sponsored hooliganism they're
committing, and the practice has never been seriously challenged in the
Supreme Court.

This looks to be the defense:

 _The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Timbs, on interesting grounds.
It said the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to
ones imposed by states._

From the 14th Amendment Section 1, it's disturbing that the following isn't
obvious to any high school graduate:

 _All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws._

Equally disturbing is the thought that Illinois might just win this case
anyway.

It's interesting to consider what might happen if reason prevails. A lot of
people have lost a lot of property over the years to to forfeiture. I can't
imagine all of them will pass on the opportunity for compensation and
punishment.

~~~
jaredklewis
To start, I am totally horrified by civil forfeiture, so please no one
construe this as defending it.

But our personal opinions aside, I don't think the Indiana Supreme court
decision is really very surprising from a legal perspective. The eight
amendment is selectively incorporated and the excessive fines clause is not
incorporated. The 14th amendment gave the courts the justification they needed
to incorporate parts of the bill of rights, but for better or worse, not
everything in the bill of rights has been incorporated yet, and there is
nothing the Indiana supreme court can do about that.

It would certainly exceed their legal jurisdiction for a state court to decide
that a federal constitution amendment is incorporated.

And while I hope this case prompts SCOTUS to fully incorporate the 8th
amendment, we should also be demanding more of our state governments.
Federalism gives states the power. The power to do bad, but also the power to
do good. Why is that we so often have to depend on federal courts to protect
our rights?

Why don't the legislators of Indiana provide protections against excessive
fines in their own constitution, and why do their citizens not demand it? We
all want the SC to swoop in and save the day, but we should also face these
questions and figure out what we need to do as a society to change this.

~~~
apo
_The eight amendment is selectively incorporated and the excessive fines
clause is not incorporated._

Interesting - what does "incorporation" mean in this context?

~~~
jdpedrie
> The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the
> first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of
> Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of
> the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

The linked document contains a table explaining which parts of the bill of
rights have been incorporated.

------
Sohcahtoa82
I've said this before in another thread and I'll reiterate it...

A lot of Second Amendment advocates say we need the right to bear arms to
protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Civil forfeiture is an
excellent example of tyranny. If the Supreme Court decides it's legal, I
better see an armed uprising.

------
asimpletune
Can someone please argue the position of the side in favor of civil
forfeiture?

~~~
ericabiz
Although I don't agree with it, I am knowledgeable about the side in favor of
civil forfeiture. (I grew up in Indiana, and my dad was an attorney there.)

The "other side" says: Seizing Land Rovers from drug dealers helps fund
underfunded rural police departments, and keeps them from having to raise
taxes on law-abiding citizens.

I have no doubt that every aspect of this viewpoint is debatable. However,
that's the viewpoint, per your request.

~~~
sjwright
You could also charge a fee to everyone who calls 911.

Seriously though. The police are a service provider who are employed by and
act on behalf of all citizens. If we want functioning law enforcement, we
should be willing to pay for it.

We might not appreciate it on a daily basis, but functioning law enforcement
saves individuals a _lot_ of money. Imagine if they didn't exist and everyone
had to to organise their own security.

~~~
jessaustin
_Imagine if they didn 't exist and everyone had to to organise their own
security._

In many locations this is effectively the situation. Police show up after
crimes are over. Sometimes they help the victims of crime, sometimes they
don't. The crimes that police interrupt are largely the victimless ones; after
all there is no victim to report the crime so if they want to prosecute they
had better catch the accused in the act.

Somebody will say that this only appears to be the case because police have
already put lots of criminals in prison. Since there are few criminals
remaining, we don't have to worry so much about crimes happening now. I can't
agree, at least in USA. Our prison population is 4-5 times what it should be.
If they imprison multitudes, they don't get credit for the possibility that
_some_ of the imprisoned actually _should_ be imprisoned.

------
danschumann
Cruel and unusual. It's not usual, because everyone has different stuff. Why
should someone with a nice car be punished more than someone with no car?
There is no justice there. It's cruel, because his car was for more than just
the drugs. It's like chopping off someone's hand, because they stole with it-
barbaric.

------
vibrato
As a poker player who routinely travels with thousands of dollars in cash, I
really hope they fix this ridiculous situation.

------
ct520
Feel like I should be hosting a reddit ama for this subject.

3x civil forfeiture victim chiming in.

3k 10k 48k

Never charged with a crime.

What would you like to know LOL.

~~~
spookyuser
Out of curiosity, why were you carrying that much cash anyway?

~~~
ct520
Lol I didn’t exactly have a legal reason. But definetly very legal in many
states today. Just an entepneur a little ahead of his time I guess.

------
martin1975
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17210880](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17210880)

This is even more egregious. He will probably get it back eventually through
much legal maneuvering but it shouldn't be this easy to screw up some poor
soul's life because of a few bad apples this law was enacted for, namely hard
to impossible to prosecute drug cartels. These forfeiture laws are basically
hammers turning every case into a nail, regardless of merit.

------
thefounder
>> I don’t feel like much of a man, because I don’t have a vehicle.

A bit off topic but someone should tell this guy that a LR doesn't make you
more of a man, especially if you buy it using the life insurance of your
father. The best for him would be to actually sell the LR(if he ever gets it
back), buy car that he can afford and use the rest of the money to put his
life in order.

------
tathougies
I feel this will be an easy one for the supreme court.

------
bmmayer1
The fact that Clarence Thomas, widely considered to be the most conservative
justice on the court, is on the record as being against the constitutionality
of Civil Forfeiture is a really good sign that this shockingly still-legal
tactic's days are numbered.

------
ada1981
Can someone make an app that handles civil forfeiture appeals automatically?

Input the location and get walked through questions and have the paperwork
filed automatically.

You could charge a percentage of the total value being claimed.

Similar to the apps to fight parking tickets.

------
dzonga
Police and criminals no different. Only that the police is the mafia running a
legal protection racket. All incentives are there for civil forfeiture. what
drives human actions are incentives.

------
newnewpdro
Does anyone here happen to know if China has an equivalent to the practice of
civil forfeiture?

------
tzakrajs
Cruel but not at all unusual.

------
jimt1234
Sorry for the long post, but I have to tell this story, as I saw 'civil
forfeiture' up-front-and-center 25 years ago.

My college girlfriend and her family migrated from Mexico in the early 70's,
worked their asses off and all became pretty successful. They mostly owned
restaurants (pizza, not tacos), but other businesses, too. One of her brothers
owned a chain of used car lots in Northern California. He was a hard-working
dude, with a wife and two sons.

One of her brother's auto-detailers got busted for possession of a small
amount of marijuana, which back in 1992 was actually a crime. The local cops
claimed that the detailer was dealing for her brother, who was using his
dealerships to distribute drugs and launder the profits. They seized his car
lots, all the cars, his house, and froze his bank accounts. All total, the
cops seized around half-a-million of cash and assets.

The DA refused to bring a case, mainly because (1) the detailer didn't even
know her brother; he only worked at the shop for less than a month, (2) the
detailer was busted for possession in his own apartment, no where near work,
(3) the detailer originally said he sold drugs at the shop, however, taped
interviews clearly showed the cops pressuring the detailer to say that; it was
like watching a POW read a pre-written statement, and (4) there was simply no
other evidence, nothing. The cops found no drugs and any of his lots or his
home. The DA even criticized the local cops' behavior in his statement,
dropping the case.

The DA dropped the case and said the local cops screwed up, so her brother
should get all his assets returned, right? Wrong. His legal issues were just
getting started. Looking back, it's clear the cops never had any intention of
a criminal case.

Her brother sued to get his assets returned, but the system is all-in for the
cops, and they know it. And they know how to work it. The cops' attorney would
file for delays, demand ridiculous documentation, and just not show up to
court appointments, causing more delays. For example, the cops' attorney
argued about the value of the seized vehicles, and demanded that her brother
have them appraised, however, he couldn't have access to the vehicles to do
the appraisals because, after months of back-and-forth, it turns out that the
vehicles were already distributed (sold at auction), just days after the
initial forfeiture. It was even rumored that one of the cops gave one of the
seized vehicles (a Mustang) to his girlfriend, less than a week after the
initial forfeiture. Her brother also was not allowed access to his home where
all of his records were kept, however, police were seen coming and going for
months.

Oh yeah, remember how the DA never filed the case? That was another thing the
cops' attorney argued - basically, since there was never a criminal trial, her
brother was never found not guilty and thus the cops didn't know if he was a
drug dealer or not. They claimed their policy allowed them to return assets to
those proven not guilty in court. See how that works?

This whole back-and-forth process went on for over two years. I'm skipping A
LOT of details. Finally, the police department offered $50,000, take it or
leave it. Her brother's attorney advised he take it, noting that the situation
would only get worse, the city was prepared to drag out the case indefinitely.
He didn't get his house back, any of the vehicles, or his business - nothing.
He took his money and moved back to Mexico with his wife and kids. He now owns
a chain of restaurants - that's right, pizza. None of them even liked pizza. I
always found that strange. LOL

Anyone who supports 'civil forfeiture' has simply never seen the effects on
innocent lives. The defense I hear all the time is "Who cares? They're all
drug dealers.", or "I don't believe it. Why would the cops seize assets from
an innocent person?", and "What's so difficult about getting your stuff back,
after it was seized?" But I saw a good man's life destroyed by this horrible
policy. I buried my anger/frustration about this for years, thinking this bad
policy couldn't possibly last, but unfortunately I was wrong. It's only gotten
worse over the last 25 years. A lot worse.

------
s2g
Can't wait for the 5-4 decision reaffirming civil forfeiture.

------
neurotech1
John Oliver on Civil Forfeiture:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

------
balozi
I'm calling it now: 6-3. Thomas, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and
Kagan in the six.

Thomas has made his position clear about this in the past, Roberts
sensibilities are often libertarian, and the others are liberals.

~~~
conanbatt
Wouldn't liberals be pro-forfeiture?

~~~
GavinMcG
No? "Liberal" doesn't mean "pro-government". What definition are you using
that suggests they would?

~~~
conanbatt
Are conservatives pro-government?

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
Define "pro-government".

------
nicklaf
I am appalled at the opinion of Judge Barnes:

 _“I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have
exercised in some of these cases,” Judge Barnes wrote. “Entire family farms
are sometimes forfeited based on one family member’s conduct, or exorbitant
amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals
heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer,
must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself.”_

This sort of intersection between hard biological reality on the one hand (in
this case, predictable consequence of highly addictive drugs), and the hard-
nosed moralizing of a judge, reminds me of something Robert Sapolsky has been
trying to impart about what we should give consideration to when looking for
the ultimate sources of culpability when biological factors are involved, and
whether or not we ought to see negative social behavior as a crime or a
disease. Sapolsky has written a recent book about this topic, _Behave: The
Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst_.

~~~
scrollaway
...but he's talking about a dealer, not a user?

~~~
nicklaf
He _was_ a user, though! And presumably became a dealer as a result (although
this is not clear):

 _Mr. Timbs’s habit started with an opioid addiction and progressed to heroin.
He used his Land Rover to get drugs and, on at least two occasions, to sell
them. The buyers were undercover police officers._

