An End To Civil Forfeiture? A Decision Kathy Jennings Must Read Right Away
Could this be the beginning of the end for civil forfeitures?
The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that ‘…the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose fines and seize property.” The case in question concerned an Indiana man who had his $42K Land Rover seized b/c he had sold a couple hundred dollars worth of heroin.
Now bear in mind that, in this case, the person who had his property seized had indeed committed a crime. Then remember that, in Delaware, people have had their property, cash and belongings seized even though no finding of guilt ever was reached, and, in many cases, no charges were filed and no proceedings ever took place.
Justice Clarence Thomas (!) laid it out clearly: “This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.”
I believe that this decision is the de facto death knell for civil forfeiture. I hereby call on Attorney General Jennings to suspend the use of civil forfeiture until and unless further clarification is forthcoming from the courts.
I think this is BIG, folks.
Most of the times this tactic is employed, its not a $42K Landrover, its a 1998 Acura Integra and $300 cash taken from someone who has no means to contest it.
It is an abject embarrassment that this practice has continued for as long as it has.
True. Note that the opinion was written by Justice Ginsberg, Thomas’s (While the majority on Wednesday relied on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas said he would have ruled “the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the 14th Amendment.”) were not the decision.
This is most welcomed, have never seen civil forfeiture as anything but legalized theft. Pity that this decision took nearly 40 years to get here but welcomed none the less, even better that it was unanimous. I expect an assortment of whining and crying from local and state police departments about not being able to balance their budgets, but as Revanella once said Fuck ’em!
“This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.”
Gee, who would have guessed?
In reading this decision, I don’t think that the AG has any choice but to suspend the practice of civil forfeiture. The ruling appears to render Delaware’s expansive use of civil forfeiture unconstitutional.
I’d also like to know about the retroactive return of ill-gotten lucre.
What saieth the barristers?
According to this NYTimes analysis, legislators and prosecutors will still have a role to play. Let’s hope that they play it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Here’s what cops shop for at the civil forfeiture bazaar:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html?module=inline