• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This Cash Cow for Cops Should Stop

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,643
Reaction score
20,923
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent

What I don't understand is how has this not been challenged at SCOTUS as this is clearly unConstitutional.

It 100% violates the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 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.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
What I don't understand is how has this not been challenged at SCOTUS as this is clearly unConstitutional.

It 100% violates the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 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.
I agree with you 100%, but as I understand it they use smoke and mirrors and charge the property. Property doesn't have the same rights as people (it's an old English common law concept, IIRC). And, as I also understand it, the SC has signed off on this Constitutional end run.
 

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,643
Reaction score
20,923
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree with you 100%, but as I understand it they use smoke and mirrors and charge the property. Property doesn't have the same rights as people (it's an old English common law concept, IIRC). And, as I also understand it, the SC has signed off on this Constitutional end run.

hmmm.... well, that is complete BS and probably really only hurts middle class and poor people who it hurts the most, unfortunately.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,183
Reaction score
21,308
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
SCOTUS has made a number of rulings on the validity of asset forfeiture:

The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1 (1827). An early case in which the Supreme Court applies an in rem theory to seize property without a criminal conviction of the owner.
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965). The Exclusionary Rule applies to block evidence obtained illegally in forfeiture cases, providing a Fourth Amendment limitation on forfeiture procedure.
Calero Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974). The Supreme Court finds that Due Process does not require pre-seizure notice or hearing, and that the innocence of the owner is not a general defense.
Austin v. U.S., 506 U.S. 602 (1993). On the facts of the case, in rem forfeiture of real property is punitive and violates the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines clause.
U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). Both the Fourth and Fifth Amendment limit the actions of the government in forfeiture proceedings, providing owners with notice and other Due Process protections.
Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). The Court holds that forfeiture is not a taking under the Fourteenth Amendment and continues to confirm the lack of "innocent owner" defense.
U.S. v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). A civil in rem forfeiture proceeding following a criminal conviction is not punitive, and therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy clause.
U.S. v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998). On the facts of the case, an in rem forfeiture of cash violates the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines clause due to lack of proportionality with the conduct authorizing forfeiture.

It doesn't matter which side of the bench, conservative or liberal, they voted for it.

It is a travesty, but unfortunately founded on a lot of case law.

It is highly unlikely they will change. The change has to come from Congress.
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,643
Reaction score
20,923
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
SCOTUS has made a number of rulings on the validity of asset forfeiture:

The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1 (1827). An early case in which the Supreme Court applies an in rem theory to seize property without a criminal conviction of the owner.
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965). The Exclusionary Rule applies to block evidence obtained illegally in forfeiture cases, providing a Fourth Amendment limitation on forfeiture procedure.
Calero Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974). The Supreme Court finds that Due Process does not require pre-seizure notice or hearing, and that the innocence of the owner is not a general defense.
Austin v. U.S., 506 U.S. 602 (1993). On the facts of the case, in rem forfeiture of real property is punitive and violates the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines clause.
U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). Both the Fourth and Fifth Amendment limit the actions of the government in forfeiture proceedings, providing owners with notice and other Due Process protections.
Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). The Court holds that forfeiture is not a taking under the Fourteenth Amendment and continues to confirm the lack of "innocent owner" defense.
U.S. v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). A civil in rem forfeiture proceeding following a criminal conviction is not punitive, and therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy clause.
U.S. v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998). On the facts of the case, an in rem forfeiture of cash violates the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines clause due to lack of proportionality with the conduct authorizing forfeiture.

It doesn't matter which side of the bench, conservative or liberal, they voted for it.

It is a travesty, but unfortunately founded on a lot of case law.

It is highly unlikely they will change. The change has to come from Congress.

When coupled with other catastrophic Decision like Plessy v Ferguson, etc you wonder how we have any rights at all and what good is SCOTUS if they have their heads so far up their asses as to actually validate the government violating our Due Process Rights and deprive us of our property?
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
47,532
Reaction score
31,221
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What I don't understand is how has this not been challenged at SCOTUS as this is clearly unConstitutional.

It 100% violates the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 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.

I despise civil forfeiture, and thankfully pretrial asset freezes have been done away with, but simply citing the 5th doesn't answer it. What "process" is "due" is not defined and depends on the circumstances, so the courts have had tons of wiggle room to make up what process is due.
 

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I despise civil forfeiture, and thankfully pretrial asset freezes have been done away with, but simply citing the 5th doesn't answer it. What "process" is "due" is not defined and depends on the circumstances, so the courts have had tons of wiggle room to make up what process is due.

Maybe a language problem, but "due process" does not equal "what process is due".

the official and proper way of doing things in a legal case : the rule that a legal case must be done in a way that protects the rights of all the people involved

Full Definition of due process

1
1
: a course of formal proceedings (as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles —called also procedural due process

2
2
: a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual —called also substantive due process

Due Process | Definition of Due process by Merriam-Webster
 
Top Bottom