Supreme Court rules against excessive state fines and forfeitures

A rare unanimous decision. Some good news for a change.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suprem...yson-timbs-40k-suv-seized-over-400-drug-sale/

I've long considered the assert forfeiture / seizure policies and practices in this country to be beyond insane.

Glad to see a step in the right direction.

Good, let's hope this is the beginning of the end for civil forfeiture.

It is not the end though it seems total amounts allowed to be seized will have to go down.

The thing is the seizure of the Land Rover in this case was a relatively mild example of the excessive use of civil forfeiture. I remember an account of a raid on a couples huge home on their ranch apparently based on little more than a rumor that they were involved in drug trafficking but the local authorities saw an opportunity to seize the couples multi million dollar home and ranch.

With a SWAT team bashing in the door (at night) , the man (quite reasonably) grabbed for a rifle he kept stored in a closet.

And was shot dead. No drugs were ever found.

The state should not have a profit motive.

Communist.

A good ruling.

And I'm astonished it's taken until the 21st Century for this part of the 8th Amendment to be incorporated against the states.

The reasoning behind civil forfeiture was sound. It seems pretty ridiculous to arrest a major drug dealer who then can liquidate wealth he has acquired to pay for a monstrously expensive kick ass legal team.

But as with most things it was ripe for abuse. I've heard it got to the point in some areas that law enforcement officials would raid a suspects home and literally go in "calling dibs" on nice things he owned that they wanted first crack at (no pun intended) when it was put up for auction under civic forfeiture laws.

The NYT article offers a clue why: all 50 states have similar provisions in their constitutions already; they were just ignoring them for the past few decades.

In my opinion states are very good at ignoring their own rules. Especially if money is involved.

Sure, but incorporation means the feds can step in if the state doesn't hold up its end.

Where it comes to our rights, I like having mom and dad to play off each other.

I heard about this on the radio today. It's about time!

how dare they legislate from the bench and act in the interest of the people

it might have been an experiment to see how people will take to such novel behavior. If they like the results they might try doing it again, who knows?

Why? Does the accused not have the right to a defense?

Of course. Everyone has a right to a defense. But no one has a right to a "dream team" defense.

Just in time for certain RICO cases that might come up against Trump.

@Federal Farmer i'll put you down as not getting andor liking sarcasm