[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case, But Justice Thomas Questions Constitutionality Of Asset Forfeiture from the about-freaking-time deptWe've been writing about the sheer insanity of asset forfeiture for many, many years. If you happen to have missed it, civil asset forfeiture is the process by which the government can just take your stuff by arguing that it must have been the proceeds of criminal activity. They literally file a lawsuit against your stuff, not you. And, here's the real kicker: in most places, they never have to file any lawsuits about the actual crime, let alone get a conviction. They just get to take your stuff, say that it must have been the proceeds of a crime, and unless you go through the insanely expensive and burdensome process of demanding it back, they effectively get to walk off with your stuff. Law enforcement has literally referred to the process as going shopping. Most people who understand what's going on recognize that it's just state-sponsored theft. I'm constantly amazed to find people who simply don't believe civil asset forfeiture could possibly work the way it does. The whole process is so crazy and so lacking in basic due process, that many people literally find it unbelievable. And while some states have moved towards requiring a criminal conviction to keep the stuff, many don't have that, and our President and Attorney General are huge fans of civil asset forfeiture -- so it's unlikely to change any time soon. That is, unless the courts get involved. While the Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal on yet another egregious case of civil asset forfeiture, Justice Clarence Thomas issued an accompanying statement suggesting that he's having trouble understanding how civil asset forfeiture could possibly be legal in its current form. The case in question is egregious, but not all that unlike many other cases we've written about. People travelling with a large sum of cash (for a perfectly legit reason) are stripped of the cash by law enforcement who doesn't believe their reasons -- and then never files any criminal charges or anything, but just takes off with the cash:
Of course, no criminal charges were ever filed against any of the individuals related to this. The government just took the money. The lower courts all sided with law enforcement, and now the case had a chance to go before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it passed on the case (as it does with most petitions), but Thomas is clearly troubled by all of this:
From there, Justice Thomas looks through the historic rationale that has allowed these laws to remain on the books, and finds some problems, especially concerning how differently the law is being used, and the general conflation among some of the criminal procedures and civil procedures:
Unfortunately, for procedural reasons (the people who had their money seized didn't challenge the constitutionality at the lower courts and only did so after losing), the Supreme Court has to reject this case. However, Thomas' pretty clear message is that at least one sitting Justice is very troubled with the idea that civil asset forfeiture as practiced today in many states (and by the federal government) could possibly be considered constitutional. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4. Very glad to see the USSC is getting some sanity from Thomas! Anyone who thinks Civil Asset Forfeiture is okay should just campaign for the repeal of the 4th Amendment.
#4. To: Pinguinite (#2) Clarence Thomas is the best supreme court justice we have.
Replies to Comment # 4. Clarence Thomas is the best supreme court justice we have. Yes, true even when Scalia was still there.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#4) (Edited)
Clarence Thomas is the best supreme court justice we have. That is absolutely CORRECT! I don’t understand what his questioning the constitutionality of asset forfeiture has to do with: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case. Obviously I worded my question incorrectly …
End Trace Mode for Comment # 4. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|