Supreme Court Rules! Timbs Wins - Lehto's Law Ep. 5.94
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- The Supreme Court unanimously ruled (2/20/2019) that the State of Indiana cannot keep the SUV they seized from Tyson Timbs. They ruled on it as an 8th Amendment question, however, and not as a "taking" under Due Process.
www.lehtoslaw.com
If you are asked by the cops to hand over a large wad of money [so they can check it]. And you refuse, can they use force to take it?
who is going to stop them???
@@wizard3z868 Alright, legally, use force. Like, the cash is on the passenger seat, you have the doors locked and refuse to unlock them.
As a retired law enforcement sergeant I truly appreciate your taking the time to post these videos. I’m also a car guy.
Thank you so much sir.
A unanimous win for individual rights? Be still my heart. Finally, some common sense. You are correct sir, we still have a LONG way to go, but it's a step in the right direction.
If someone is never even charged with a crime, what is the proper "fine" amount that a police officer can charge? Any amount is excessive until a court orders it.
It's pleasantly surprising that the ruling was unanimous.
No kidding. I was about to drop my teeth when he said that wonderful word! May we hope for some return to sanity? Dare we?
What fine is not considered excessive when there is no conviction, or even no charges? This is just idiotic.
I thought I would never see this date. There’s still hope for this nation.
i will still go first to clear path for flights of troops to enter like i already have.
What if someone argue that civil asset forfeiture while not convicted or even accused is associated with a fine of exactly $0.00 and thus any amount taken is excessive fine?
Find such a forfeiture and get the funds to appeal the seizure to the SCOTUS. If they refuse to review the case, then find another and repeat. The SCOTUS does NOT initiate appeals of rulings, they only review cases brought before them.
Steve, you have a cool channel with interesting facts.
things we would normally not have access to .
You are doing the average person a wonderful service and I would like to thank you for all your expertise in law.
Police took my property twice in excess of 30k dollars. No body was ever charged with anything. Since there was never a charge/conviction; That must be excessive since there isn't anything to compare the loss to ?
(No proportionate value to compare it to)
Even if they do classify this as a fine. Does not even fines have to be issued and levied or retrieved by the courts post hearing of the case not pre hearing but only if found guilty with due process. If I am not mistaken where in any law or laws have the police been able to collect fines of any type pre hearing of a case without due process.
Right. This is a variable fine -- you lose whatever amount of cash you happen to be carrying. You know the Supreme Court Justives do NOT get out enough with the average Joe.
Addendum: what did it cost Timm to go to the SCOTUS?
I beleave its a 200$ filing fee + whatever attorney costs.
www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/blog/supreme-court/fees-costs-supreme-court/
This will hit Texas. They have some really onerous fees and fines.
Repeat after me, kids: "I do not consent to any searches."
Now what about stopping confiscating cash with no evidence of any crime?
They can and will do anything they please. Try to call them on it. See what happens. Nothing is what happens" They win. You lose.
@@nevermind-he8ni The cash can be seized if there is probable cause to believe that it constitutes the proceeds of a crime. So, for instance, if the police raid a drug house and find a quantity of cash in a room, it can be seized even if the owner cannot be determined. Usually the owner does not come forward because it would involve admission of a crime.
THANK U SO MUCH . THE COUNTRY NEEDS MORE PEOPLE IN LAW LIKE YOU SIR
Stop yelling please, aren't we a group of mature humans
So I heard about this decision while driving home this morning and immediately knew that I had to check Lehto's Law for a video when I got home. I was not disappointed.
Aladdin Sane me too. Same thing.
*I WILL SAY THIS IF I GO TO AN ATM AND THERE'S A COP IN THE PARKING LOT I AM NOT TAKING MONEY OUT* Wow, we live in a scary time when you have to be worried about the Police stealing our money!
@@plaid13 Most people who are afraid of the government probably should be afraid of the government.
And assault and kidnap us when we refuse.
@@Cryptonymicus because they're not in the government or a law enforcement family or not rich enough to not be afraid of the government
I remember from a previous video you did. You mentioned a guy who was pulled over and had cash, AND documents showing the cash was for purchase of a Restaurant. Even showing the money was legit, it was still taken.
The state: "We would like to maintain the right to steal from the public legally, whenever we want to; not only to fill state coffures, but also so we can buy goodies, vacations and party with some of the proceeds as spoils of the confiscation procedure."
It's rather absurd that a person who hasn't committed any crime can lose as much as the cops feel like taking from them but someone who has been convicted of a crime now has a limit to how much can be taken from them. Shouldn't any fine levied on an innocent person be unreasonable?
Thanks for the update. I wish the people who are running our country thought more like you. Our country would be a much better place to live.
I've heard a story how in a police car chase, the baddies crashed, left the car, and took off running through the neighborhood. They ran into one house (unlocked front door), through the house then out the back, and kept running. The police seized the house from an old granny (no relation to the baddies) because her house had facilitated the baddies flight. Also because it was valuable, and reasons.
The seizure makes the police baddies too. Pure unadulterated theft.
I do not see any difference between police who confiscate cash from drivers they have stopped and regular highway robbers. Maybe this ruling will slow down the legal thefts from citizens. Like many laws the one allowing police to confiscate money or property with no actual proof was poorly thought out and left us with a terrible miscarriage of justice. Please keep up with this and keep us informed on the further effect of the ruling.
Thank you for following up with this, sir. I've been greatly looking forward to this!
So if a cop takes my $80000, I should make sure I'm arrested.
March 8th, 2019 Authorities in Georgia reportedly seized more than $500,000 in cash from two Colombian men during a traffic stop on Interstate 75. This ruling did nothing to stop civil asset forfeiture.
Notice the men have not been charged yet? www.foxnews.com/us/georgia-deputies-seize-500g-from-car-in-traffic-stop
And 2 years later, I’m just learning of that... which happened in the neighboring county to me/the county I work in 😲
Steve, this is even larger than you say because it was previously said the 8th amendment doesn't apply to the states. This case now says the 8th amendment applies to the states, a huge bill of rights ruling.
So the trick here is if a cop pulls you over, and takes your stuff, you have to make sure that he charges you with something. At what point is it more economical to punch a cop so you get your stuff back based on this ruling?
I've got an idea, let's get Ginsberg to drive southbound through TN with 100k in cash. After they seize it, we'll all see how fast the law changes
"According to the Supreme Court Database, since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result - averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up about 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases." -- The Washington Post
So... if you haven't been convicted of a crime, wouldn't *any* fine be excessive?
If they call it a fine, yes.
Thank you Steve for keeping us up to date with the current state of civil asset forfeiture. With as many videos as you have produced and the value it has brought me, I cannot fully express my gratitude here. Thank you so much my fellow Michiganian!
Another excellent video. Thanks for covering this.
I wonder if this applies to New Jersey's BS use of surcharges for driving offenses. In short, all moving violations, in addition to the fine, drivers(In and out of state) are surcharged an additional amount that is supposed (yeah, right) to go to the state's uninsured motorists fund. This can and does go into the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars.
Civil asset forfeiture has to be based on some laws. Those laws either need to be removed or severely updated to not violate people's rights.
Top notch logic here. Convicted criminals are afforded greater asset protection than law abiding citizens.
apheus27 it was determined that the vehicle was not purchased using monies gained illegally. That’s not greater protection it is the same ..” protection “ you would receive
Remember, if you support the vindictive irrational things the government and it’s agents do to undeserving people you are accepting that for yourself as well.
@@drewconlin9452 You misunderstand my comment. It is referring to the limitation of fines imposed on criminal convictions, limiting the amount of seizure. Civil asset forfeiture has no such limitation because there are no laws dictating fines for non-convictions. In essence, criminals are afforded greater asset protections than law abiding citizens.
I have no plans to go to Indiana, but I can tell it's a place to avoid. The people of that state put those justices in their supreme court, and that says a lot about them.
So . . . If you're guilty . . . but they take too much in relation to your crime. . .that's illegal.
If you're innocent of any crime . . . they have no way to measure the amount taken against your crime(since you didn't commit one) . . . so they just keep it all.
So this ruling does not really address civil forfeiture, where money is stolen from people who have committed no crime? Also that the money could be taken without due process and in order to get the money back, individual has to sue the state and upon winning the case is responsible for the litigation expenses.
I worked as a contractor in a facility in Boston that stores these confiscated items. It was bigger than an airplane hanger. stacked wall to wall, floor, floor to ceiling with all manners of "ill- gotten" merchandise. In the middle of this structure was a concrete bunker, covered in razor wire and guarded by a "private" security company , full automatic weapons, body armor , and completely unmarked uniforms. This is where the drugs and cash were stored.I just found it ironic, tragic and comical that police don't even trust themselves no to just walk off with this stuff. They have to hire someone else to protect them from stealing.But they don't bother to lock up the bicycles or the old tv's. The exotic cars disappear very quickly. There is a public auction system in place, supposedly but those items seem to get claimed by the chosen few officials for a nominal fee. so the first bidder is the last bidder. And and an officer get a Ferrari for $140.before they become available to public auction. I saw this happen first hand.
@@RCFrizz If cops were honest there wouldn't need any need for this. The fact they need to hire a private agency to from keeping them from stealing citizens' is a disgrace..
@@RCFrizzRight. It's not the morally bankrupt copts to blame, The mafia did it. What color is the sky on your planet?
@Micha EL I worked there for two weeks. I know what I saw. Believe what you want.
@@RCFrizz Sorry, teacher...thanks for the grammar lesson.
It is very nice to see follow-up videos on cases or situations that were discussed previously but not yet resolved. Kudos on follow-through.
In New Mexico, a woman had her car seized because her nephew drove it while under the influence. I don't recall how far up the chain of courts she had to go, but she got her car back and a ruling that a car can't be seized because someone used it when committing a crime that the owner was unaware of. The state of New Mexico passed a law prohibiting civil forfeiture, but the city of Albuquerque is still doing it under a city ordinance. The city claims they are not bound by the state law because their ordinance supersedes it.
I eagerly await these videos, then spend the first few moments to minutes trying to locate the $100 bill.
You are not taking into account how the State(s) will retaliate. Impound fees, storage fees, clerical fees, inventory fees, etc....
He may get his SUV back but only after paying fees so great the cost of doing so may exceed the cost of the vehicle.
My suggestion: never commit a crime in a vehicle except when the vehicle is near worthless.
Like an inchworm, this recent decision inches us closer to stopping "civil" asset forfeiture for good. (I put that in quotes because I don't find anything civil about thievery of ANY kind.) Sadly, no cigar yet. Thanks for reporting on this very important issue.
My daughter had her truck seized after her then husband stole it and used it to steal a 4-wheeler and even though they were legally separated at the time local Law Enforcement maintained she was somehow also responsible even though she was asleep when her truck was taken and didnt even learn about it until after he was caught. After 3 fricking years of back and forth a local Judge finally ruled in her favor and she was able to get it back but she was lucky, everyone at the time told her she would never see it again but she never gave up, just shows how much Law Enforcement abused this unconstitutional law, if she would have simply listened to these folks her truck would have been sold off. And anybody who thinks that the police did it to fight crime and for justice sake need to wake up and quit living in their naïve world, I can attest our local Law Enforcement were total and absolute pricks and ass-holes in regards to this case, they did it because they could and thought it was funny. And FYI...after 3 years of sitting in a unsecured lot all 4 tires were slashed and that someone or somehow, her engine had been vandalized to the point of needing to be replaced so even after she was able to get it back the damage had already been done.
Jon Mayer - very good comment. RUclips will delete it.
Love your channel. Love your content and how you bring your personal and professional thoughts to public awareness!!
I hope this ruling gets the gears rolling on a full civil asset forfeiture case
As soon as I saw the ruling I thought of you and wondered if you had a video posted yet. I thought the same thing. Good but not good enough.
I wanted you to comment on this.
So you can still lose your stuff when not accused or convicted. This kind of thinking is not the America I want to live in.
Great minds think alike!
Can he also sue the state for the loss of use of his SUV?
Thanks for sharing another great episode!
I would like to know that to
GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN!!! Thank you for all you do
Agree.
1 small step for liberty!
There is way too much money made by law enforcement in civil asset forfeiture for it to go away. Many departments make 10+% of the budget from forfeiture, some in the Carolinas upwards of 25%.
So the state of Indiana spent hundreds of thousands or some millions of dollars to keep a Land Rover that is now worth less than 10K? Brilliant
Hey, it's not a problem. They've seized millions in assets since this case began.
Steve, this past Monday night's CBS's Bull episode, it was a case of Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Alford Plea. After watching your video about the No Contest and Alford Plea, I knew what they were talking about in the show.
Let's all not work any more until the Civil Forfeiture is changed to only confiscate through Due Process of the Law.
So, the court successfully picked and chose the laws they needed to protect the rich (a 42k Land Rover is too much, but a $8,000 Toyota Corolla would have been perfectly fine), and, dance around any ruling that could have fortified a challenge to 4th Amendment abuses. Well done.
They must have watched your old video!! Way to go Steve
So hypothetically speaking if the cop trys to take my 80.000$ out of my car and I push him back that
is a felony and a fine of up to 5.000 plus time florida. So them keeping the 80.000$ would that be excessive?.
i would enjoy seeing 80k in one pile. i am humble so i would settle for 60k
If the courts can sue my vehicle ITSELF, can I sue the police department's cruisers or the actual building the police department is inside of?
If the courts can sue inanimate objects, why can't I???
All I'm getting out of this is blah, blah, blah, yes Civil Asset Forfeiture is still perfectly fine to do. This case did nothing to stop Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Yep, sounds like its still ok to take our stuff as long as its not excessive? And they're going to leave that up to the cops huh........
@@CaptainPothead They can still take your stuff without even charging you with anything. Nothing has changed unless they charge you with a crime and you're found guilty, then you can make a claim what they took was excessive. So the cops will just take your stuff and not charge you with a crime, so you can't go after the excessive fine. I guess if you really are guilty of something and the cops just let you go, but takes your stuff, it turns out better for you in the end.
All civil asset forfeiture has, at its most basic underpinning, a nexus in criminal law. The premise is always that a person’s asset(s) may be forfeit because the state believes that criminal activity is somehow related to the asset sought. The unfortunate development in the law is that the state is not required to prove any criminal conduct to achieve the forfeiture. An assumption is allowed to substitute for actual proof. That is where the basic break occurs with our fundamental constitutional framework. Civil asset forfeiture divorced from proof of criminal conduct is plainly a violation of the US Constitution.
Thank you Steve for following this case you are a true Patriot! Unfortunately, our government officials are not whether on the left or the right! It's all smoke and mirrors. Lol The scary thing about this is the fact the Supreme court avoided the obvious question. Most people are not concerned about the drug dealers rights however, they are concerned about someone taking their hard earned money for no good reason. Shoot, if I am the police department and need to raise money I would simply pull over every customer who leaves a cash checking establishment. Seems to me, that would be a gold mine!
No conviction, no fine, no forfeiture.
That's not what they said. Civil Asset Forfeiture is alive and well and will remain that way until the SCOTUS rules otherwise.
Seems that the change is that forfeiture now requires a conviction. Maybe it also exposes misusers to suit as well (court costs). IANAL, but this seems pretty straightforward.
@@jgcelliott1 IANAL = I am not a lawyer, right? The court specifically said that FINES cannot be excessive. They DID NOT ADDRESS Civil Asset Forfeitures where the CAF was not considered a fine. Seems pretty straight forward.
@@masterspacetime2826 no, that might be your opinion but it is the opinion of the Supreme Court that counts. Sorry.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I disagree with you. It stretches my imagination to figure under what circumstances it would not be considered a fine.
Point taken, do not carry cash!
I really do enjoy your channel
Keep up the good info.We do appreciate it.Steve..Thanks
That c note is hidden fairly well today, I almost thought I might not need a drivers license.
4TH Amendment.. it was a good idea then... It's a good idea now... gonna have it printed up and sent to you....Steve.
I like this channel because of the legal insight it gives me. Now if I can only apply it to the abuses I have suffered by the local government.
Hi Steve oh, watch several of your videos on civil asset forfeiture and I have a question. Since the Fourth Amendment provides against illegal search and seizure or should I say unreasonable search and seizure, would it stand to reason that if I'm going to carry a large amount of cash on me that I put it in some type of locked container that the police don't have a right to go through? I mean I would never give a police officer authority to search my vehicle in any circumstances whether I've done something wrong or not, but if they manage to figure out a reason to search my vehicle my understanding is that they cannot find a locked box and simply open it. They would need a separate search warrant to gain access into that box. I would love to hear your opinion on how that would work. Thanks again and have a great day.
I suspect the results would be unsatisfactory to you. If you would not give a cop permission to search your car and they're doing it anyway, they've in all likelihood gotten a drug dog to alert on it. Now they find the locked box (or locked trunk, or locked whatever) and the conversation goes "Open it." "I won't." "Open it or I'll force it open. We have probable cause." "I refuse/I don't have a key/It never opened/some other excuse." *Crunch!* "Oh, look. Drug money. Put your hands behind your back. You have the right to remain silent, etc..."
I found your channel a couple days ago, and I've been binge watching your videos like it's the hottest show on Netflix. 😂 Love the content!
Now the state has an incentive NOT to charge you! If they do, they this ruling applies. OMG, what a mess.
How did this ever get around the 4th amendment? It sounds like unreasonable seizure to me.
I support this decision and I am a retired DEA Agent. If Timbs had been charged with possession with intent to distribute, the federal fine exposure would be enormous. Misdemeanor cases should not result in civil forfeiture. The abuses started with the legacy Customs "zero tolerance" seizures of boats for small amounts of drugs and soon the state/locals became dependent on the money. That said, the concept of civil forfeiture is not unconstitutional or a violation of due process (the Congress has specifically allowed for it under Title 21 USC 881) and there are cases in which drug money must be confiscated even if no defendants are arrested. A clear example would be the discovery of 100,000 in a hidden compartment in a vehicle traveling from Michigan to TX. Nobody will be arrested in such a case, but in all probability, nobody would come forward to claim the money. Except for defense attorneys, who try to claim the funds as a "fee".
@@freefree8163 I do.
@@freefree8163Civil forfeiture is legal and constitutional, just as arresting people is legal and constitutional, but like anything, there can be instances when the law is abused. There have been instances (like the one in the SCOTUS case) where the police went too far. One problem with the laws is that they did not specify threshold amounts. Federal agency policies set threshold amounts, but many police departments do not. Therefore, if you sold me a joint in your million dollar mansion, the government could seize the real estate because your committed a drug felony on the premises. This would be an example of using the civil forfeiture law to exact an unjust penalty (even though the fines for distribution are very high, no judge would impose such a fine). Overall, the concept behind forfeiture of assets for drug crimes and all organized crime is good and sound because these are crimes committed for gain. Taking the money of a drug dealer is a good thing generally. It becomes problematic on the state and local level because some (some...not all) police departments use the law as a form of unjust taxation. The solution is not all that complicated. Going back to the hidden compartment scenario most of the time the driver 1. wants a receipt and 2. doesnt know who the money belongs to.
@@dhy5342 There are forfeiture horror stories. There are falsely convicted men horror stories. Just because a process does not work with 100 percent accuracy does not mean that the process is flawed. If you believe that, we would have to abolish the criminal justice system and let organized crime do the policing.
@@dhy5342 I am not a humanist. I believe in Original Sin and that we need laws to regulate human behavior. I was not a bureaucrat , but worked the streets in Chicago, Miami, El Paso, Maine and DC for 27 years, which gives me a bit more expertise and knowledge of drug law enforcement than most people. If you didnt speak anonymously (most people are more civil when they use their true name), respectful and not quite as confident of your knowledge of the world, you could learn something. dhy, you are probably a young man. As you gain some experience in life, you will see things not as black and white but also gray. The police and DEA are not thieves, as you stated. Nearly all are dedicated men and women working in a hostile environment, both socially and politically, doing a job that most are afraid to do.
dhy5342 ..... All our problems could be worked out if the ones (politicians) involved were able to think as you, as seen in your comment.
What about Civil Orders of Protection, issued against a man at an Ex Parte hearing? This is a man never ever arrested for anything, and obviously never convicted of anything. The wife at this Ex Parte hearing complained her husband was abusive, which was a lie, and she lied about many other things. The result was this Dad, who did nothing wrong was kicked out of his house for 3 weeks without due process of law. He was also denied custody of his children.
The wife in this case was a known child abuser. Dating back to 7 years before this Ex Parte hearing.
As the result of this, the husband filed for divorce, claiming husband abuse. The largest individual act of husband abuse was being kicked out of the house and losing custody of his children for 3 weeks due to the Ex Parte hearing.
On the date the husband filed for divorce, he appeared before that same Judge and got a Status Quo order, since at that point in time, the wife had moved out, without the children, about six weeks before. This husband maintained custody of house and children throughout the 3 year long divorce process, and was eventually awarded sole custody of the house and children, when the Divorce was finalized.
I ask this question since those children suffered irreparable harm from the whole process made much worse than a divorce would have been without the Police and Courts getting involved falsely accusing their Dad of abuse.
I also know, as a Pastor, this type of thing still goes on, with men being considered guilty in family court until proven innocent.
An interesting thought.
Ok, the max fine on a criminal conviction is $10,000.
Defendant is given the max fine in sentencing.
Defendant had $10,000 in cash seized prior to the conviction under CF.
Is not 'fining' the defendant double the statute prescribed max fine excessive?
Is not even One Dollar over the statute prescribed amount excessive?
I don't believe the SCOTUS made any ruling on what would be considered "excessive". They sent the case back to the state, for further consideration. About all we can get from the ruling is that 4 -5 times the maximum fine is excessive.
Nor did they address whether cash seized could be reclaimed to be used to pay a fine, as that was not the issue being reviewed. Another case would have to be put before the SCOTUS directly asking for a review of such forfeiture before they could review such seizures.
@@buggsy5
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled (2/20/2019) that the State of Indiana cannot keep the SUV they seized from Tyson Timbs.
The above is from Steve's description; not sent back to State.
About all we can get from the ruling is that 4 -5 times the maximum fine is excessive.
Correct; but, for the first time Ever, CF and criminal fine are tied together. That is huge.
Nor did they address whether cash seized could be reclaimed to be used to pay a fine, as that was not the issue being reviewed.
Correct.
Another case would have to be put before the SCOTUS directly asking for a review of such forfeiture before they could review such seizures.
Correct; Steve mentions this as I did.
It will take some time; but I 'feel' CF will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional and this was just the first steep, finally.
Can you give us a list of states where civil forfeiture occurs the most and those the least - descending order?
I know Connecticut and New Mexico require a criminal conviction to forfeit property.
but I can see them say that you have to pay us for towing and storage fee and the storage fee adds up every day
You’re being sarcastic, right?
@@lisaschuster9187 nope
I honestly had no idea this was an issue. The fourth amendment, seems pretty clear on this. no real need to go to the 14th.. How did I miss this?
State of Indiana: “Can we keep the bitchin’ sound system?”
Our judicial system is a bad joke.
The cops will not give up the cash so easy.
By what contorted logic does calling a seizure "civil" circumvent the explicit requirement upon the government to only do so through due process?
KNICK, KNACK, PADDY-WHACK, GIVE A DOG A BONE!
this old man went rolling home
Welcome back to the bench, Madam Justice.
When is the Supreme Court going to start ruling against Illegal Aliens instead of ruling against U.S. Citizens in those matters? We need to make it a felony to be in this country illegally.
It is.
Question, so maybe drive around with a bud of weed or something. that way they will charge you with possession or something similar and they will not be able to take your car?
Steve, do I understand this to mean that CAF may be found to be excessive if one is convicted, but the decision does not apply if one is not charged or convicted?
Please let us know.
One remedy to get costs and maybe the property forfeited would be to make a claim against the town's or county insurance. Sometime called risk management.
6:55 If the government can't take away our right to free speech (1st amendment), then why are gun free zones a thing? That's suspending our 2nd Amendment rights in certain areas. Noone would be able to tell black people "sorry, the thirteenth amendment doesnt apply here" or tell women they dont have the right to vote in a particular area.
i hear you....if a private company decides they want a gun free zone at there place of business ..nothing anyone can do government is not restricting there....tell a black person 13th amendment does not apply here...you know what will happen... i am 2nd amendment supporter for law abiding citizens and ive found the radical anti people are just ignorant and believe anything media tells them.
@@workingshlub8861 it never fails to stun me how many people are content to swallow all the lies and slanted opinion the MSM spoon feeds them. Hollywierd is just as bad with their SJW messages that they slip into movies. It's ok to have an opinion on things but can't we just escape life for 2 hours and watch a movie without having to sit through a sermon?
It seems a very small step to appeal a forfeiture that is not related to a crime on the basis that any forfeiture in those circumstances is excessive since the related fine is $0.00.
I imagine they don't even have his car anymore. If they do, it was probably outside for years. Not worth any where near what it was at the time.
Actually sometimes they even use them for personal vehicles.
It is good news regardless of the reason why. 9-0 ruling and an opinion by Justice Ginsburg. I think that is good. I guess they wanted to find the narrowest ruling that they all could accept.
I would concider having my stuff taken (including money) cruel and unusual punishement.
OK so when you get on the Supreme Court you can change all that.
Excessive fines, that seems very grey and in fact completely undefined this must have been done in purpose.
Could you argue that a civil asset forfeiture with no tying criminal action is in and of itself an excessive fine imposed onto a citizen for the actions of dealing with the law enforcement agencies whom forfeited their property?
When I lived in L.A., I remember them talking about how they would start seizing cars if ANY drugs involved, in a traffic stop, for example. It was during the 80s, and some people were freaking out because it was explained that parents could lose their car if their teen was stopped and had a joint. I'm curious as to when civil forfeiture started; going to look it up. This "legal concept" (and too many others) is just completely out of control and outrageous on its face. But the appeal is made to start based (always) on "crime prevention". Yeah, right.
I would personally like to thank the federalists from the 1790s for yielding to the ratification of the Bill of Rights. A better document for prohibiting tyranny has never been produced!
The Indiana State Constitution, Article 1: Section 16 prohibits excessive fines. Apparently the majority of justices on the Indiana Supreme Court never bothered to read the State Constitution (also Section 11 mirrors the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution).