More good news.
At issue was the important question of whether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause applied to the states and whether the excessive fines clause applied to a practice called in rem civil-asset forfeiture. Under this practice, law-enforcement officials often engage in two separate punitive legal processes against criminal defendants. The first is the criminal prosecution itself, which can impose prison sentences and fines according to statutorily defined punishments. The second is often a civil action against the criminal defendant’s property. Yes, the government will file suit against trucks, cars, jewelry, boats, and cash — leading to absurd case captions like, say, Texas v. One Gold Crucifix — claiming that the property was used for criminal purposes and then seize that property under a lower, civil, burden of proof.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, civil-asset forfeiture now faces a new and substantial constitutional obstacle. I particularly liked how Justice Ginsburg traced objections to the excessive fines all the way back to the Magna Carta:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/good-news-a-unanimous-supreme-court-strikes-a-blow-for-civil-liberties/
PD's around the country have abused this over and over for profit. I'm happy to see it being addressed. I'm also happy that Ruth is doing better.
Replies
Liberals, Centrists, Conservatives and Libertarians all agree on this. Now, would that SCOTUS go after speed traps and ticket quotas. The last speeding ticket I received was ten years ago in a VA speed trap on I-81 for being 2 mph over the limit. It still irks me when I think about it.
As an aside, the PA Supreme Court long ago ruled that ticket quotas are illegal. State and local cops here now use the perfectly legal "administratively determined performance measurement goals".
Asset forfeiture is a horrendous abuse of power. Men have lost their lives because they had assets the government wanted to seize.
Finally.
Asset forfeiture is how the Great General I've used as my avatar had his home stolen from him and turned into a cemetery.
Except he was actually guilty of a crime.
It was actually his wife's land. She paid the taxes but they were refused. What was she guilty of?
Being married to a traitor that violated his oath.
Eventually she sued and got the house and land back, but then sold it right back to the government. I think hubby the traitor had died by then at their home in Lexington.
He was not a traitor to Virginia. That decision deeply affected him and I think you'll find no one with more character and honor in that time period.
I nominate Abraham Lincoln as being that person.
Are you guys talking about General William C. Lee?
https://www.newsweek.com/general-lee-statue-set-fire-north-carolina-1339029
Idiots.
Nonsense. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. As a U.S. Army officer and especially as a past Superintendent of West Point you can't simply change sides a la Benedict Arnold - who was not a traitor to King George, btw - and expect to be revered for it.
Lee was directly responsible for the deaths of many thousands of patriots who stayed true to their oath. Where's the character and honor in that? May he rot in Hell forever, should that place or condition really exist.
Wow---you guys don't mess around with your history
We had a guy "Louis Riel"---led 2 uprisings against the Gov't of Canada---
He was hanged in 1885 for Treason
Today your gonna get very mixed reviews on whether he was a villain or a hero
Many say he was a martyr for his Metis people
Now remember this guy was hanged for treason.....now this
Guess they figured it all depended what side of the fight you were on
https://gov.mb.ca/chc/louis_riel/louis_riel_cusb.html
You'll still get the same arguments about John Brown here.
Murderer and terrorist.
He took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He broke his oath and was a treasonous so and so.