To Protect and to Serve II

Looks like the Civil Forfeiture might be in the sights of the SCOTUS.

High court likely to say states can't levy excessive fines

The Supreme Court left little doubt Wednesday that it would rule that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help an Indiana man recover the $40,000 Land Rover police seized when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin.

A decision in favor of 37-year-old Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana, also could buttress efforts to limit the confiscation by local law enforcement of property belonging to someone suspected of a crime. Police and prosecutors often keep the proceeds.

Timbs was on hand at the high court for arguments that were largely a one-sided affair in which the main question appeared to be how broadly the state would lose.

The court has formally held that most of the Bill of Rights applies to states as well as the federal government, but it has not done so on the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines ban.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was incredulous that Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher was urging the justices to rule that states should not be held to the same standard.

It's turned for the surreal when I agree with Sotomayor over something...

It was unclear whether the justices also would rule to give Timbs his Land Rover back or allow Indiana courts to decide that issue. Some justices seemed willing to take that additional step.

“If we look at these forfeitures that are occurring today ... many of them are grossly disproportionate to the crimes being charged,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
Sotomayor has surprised me with a few things. She definitely leans to the left, but I don't think she's anywhere near as bad as most of us expected.

I think the civil forfeiture is something every American should be against. Asset seizure prior to a conviction? To me, it does violate the Bill of Rights in a big way since it's a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. (of course, as of late you are already presumed guilty of a great many things...anyway).

I have no problems if a person is convicted and the assets used in or related to the commission of crimes are seized. However, you have to have that trial, have to find that guilty verdict and have to prove such property was used in or is related to that specific crime. And no transfer of property to .gov control until all appeals have been exhausted.
 
I think the civil forfeiture is something every American should be against. Asset seizure prior to a conviction? To me, it does violate the Bill of Rights in a big way since it's a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. (of course, as of late you are already presumed guilty of a great many things...anyway).

I have no problems if a person is convicted and the assets used in or related to the commission of crimes are seized. However, you have to have that trial, have to find that guilty verdict and have to prove such property was used in or is related to that specific crime. And no transfer of property to .gov control until all appeals have been exhausted.

I've always had a bit of WTF with CF when the 5A includes "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Many places are operating under basically telling the Constitution to "hold my beer" and proceed with some variation of "reasonable suspicion of guilt" being sufficient. We can't get rid of it fast enough IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
I think the civil forfeiture is something every American should be against. Asset seizure prior to a conviction? To me, it does violate the Bill of Rights in a big way since it's a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. (of course, as of late you are already presumed guilty of a great many things...anyway).

I have no problems if a person is convicted and the assets used in or related to the commission of crimes are seized. However, you have to have that trial, have to find that guilty verdict and have to prove such property was used in or is related to that specific crime. And no transfer of property to .gov control until all appeals have been exhausted.

If SCOTUS rules against IL it will be interesting in how the word the ruling, could have major 2A implications for states like CA, NY,CT and such.
 
Sotomayor has surprised me with a few things. She definitely leans to the left, but I don't think she's anywhere near as bad as most of us expected.

I’m glad to see these posts, I was planning to write a new thread about this case tonight showing that the court is absolutely not Republican and Democrat.

For once, totally agree with @Grand Vol . I think with Gorsuch seemingly on board, it goes the right way. Breyer, RBG, and Kagan at the least should vote with them.

I would almost guarantee that Thomas will dissent. Alito and Kavanaugh will also be in the minority, but that’s more of confident guess.

Not sure about Roberts. He’s said to want more consensus and the precedent is not on the government’s side in this, but he’s also written some 4th amendment cases that really stretched the government’s authority to catch and prosecute people that I thought were pretty ******.

I have to give Trump some credit. I think Gorsuch may be the single human being in the government who beat represents me, since Kennedy retired. I’ve appreciated his willingness to tell our government overlords “no.”
 
It will be interesting to see what comes out in court.... the prosecution should be very cautious with this and what they charge
I bet they’ve got some pretty compelling evidence at this point. It wouldn’t surprise me if she had a thing for the guy and just went into a jealous rage and killed him.
 
I bet they’ve got some pretty compelling evidence at this point. It wouldn’t surprise me if she had a thing for the guy and just went into a jealous rage and killed him.
One of the guys who works for me dated a chatt cop. She was so jealous that he had to hide under his truck once to avoid being run over by her .......in her cop car.

Edit. She was convinced he was cheating. He had gone fishing with me.
She’s nuts and still a chatt cop
 
Last edited:
One of the guys who works for me dated a chatt cop. She was so jealous that he had to hide under his truck once to avoid being run over by her .......in her cop car.

Edit. She was convicted he was cheating. He had gone fishing with me.
She’s nuts and still a chatt cop
Cops protect their own...
 
I follow this guy on YouTube, an attorney Steve Lehto. Watch this video and read the comments. Cops are just dirt bags supported by their used to be honest counterparts.

 
You follow this guy for that? I was waiting for some explosive revelation and nothing. For those that are contemplating watching it... he got stopped twice in his life and consented to search both times. Here’s where it gets interesting. Nothing happened.
 
You follow this guy for that? I was waiting for some explosive revelation and nothing. For those that are contemplating watching it... he got stopped twice in his life and consented to search both times. Here’s where it gets interesting. Nothing happened.
It is a waste of a civilian's time.
 
One of the guys who works for me dated a chatt cop. She was so jealous that he had to hide under his truck once to avoid being run over by her .......in her cop car.

Edit. She was convinced he was cheating. He had gone fishing with me.
She’s nuts and still a chatt cop

I probably know who this is.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top