SCOTUS rules unanimously asset forfeiture unconstitutional

[HomerJS]

Just means Donny will have hella money on his prison books. OJ Simpson still collected his 45,000.00 A MONTH NFL pension while he was in prison, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

That was different. I think pensions are exempt

 

[hal2kilo]

Just means Donny will have hella money on his prison books. OJ Simpson still collected his 45,000.00 A MONTH NFL pension while he was in prison, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Wow. His time in still must have been pretty cushy then.

 

[hal2kilo]

Good ruling but I would have preferred it went further and eliminated "excessive" altogether in favor of forfeiture only of property directly related to the crime (e.g. the drugs being sold, the gun used, etc.) rather than just whatever other stuff lying around the state could convince a judge was "reasonable."

Oh shit. I agree with you.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Wtf is going on here? Unanimous agreement?!

 

[1prophet]

Now let's if they can overturn developers using eminent domain through their politician puppets to seize land for their own profiteering under the guise of public service or need.

http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/about/3078-eminent-domain-benefits-developers-not-the-public

I would be less concerned about the use of eminent domain if I thought that it was really for a public purpose, rather than for the benefit of developers. We are in an era of public/private partnerships and what typically happens is a developer comes to the government and says, “We like that property. We think we could make good use of it. Why don’t you condemn it for us.” Then the government goes through with a charade of a public process and does it.

 

[Kwatt]

Does this apply to ALL asset forfeiture?

I'm betting that, if you walk around with an amount of cash, the police can and will still seize / steal it from you. That's a lot quieter an action than stealing a vehicle or house.

Anyways, thank god for a proper SCOTUS ruling.

It does not apply to ALL asset forfeiture.

It applies when you are found guilty or plead guilty and is what is seized value is greater than the fines that would have been assessed. And the seized property is not from the crime.

If property is seized at no one is found guilty or even charged a person would have to go to court to get it back.

This is an eighth amendment ruling on excessive fines.


.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Asset forfeiture... This also doesn't apply when cops pull someone over and you have $10,000 in the car and they "collect that as potential evidence" or whatever right?

It does not apply to ALL asset forfeiture.

It applies when you are found guilty or plead guilty and is what is seized value is greater than the fines that would have been assessed. And the seized property is not from the crime.

If property is seized at no one is found guilty or even charged a person would have to go to court to get it back.

This is an eighth amendment ruling on excessive fines.


.

Nevermind, I think your post answers my question. Lame.

 

[dainthomas]

It does not apply to ALL asset forfeiture.

It applies when you are found guilty or plead guilty and is what is seized value is greater than the fines that would have been assessed. And the seized property is not from the crime.

If property is seized at no one is found guilty or even charged a person would have to go to court to get it back.

This is an eighth amendment ruling on excessive fines.


.

I'm curious why a case has never gone to the supreme court regarding people having to prove their innocence to recover their property?

 

[Ciber]

Wtf is going on here? Unanimous agreement?!

I know, I'm Shocked!

 

[Thebobo]

Finally, the supreme court upholds individuals rights and liberties.

A step in the right direction.

Kinda like the raisin case. Why does the government think they can seize property without due process.

Eminent domain irks me as well but without it we wouldn't have a lot of the nationl parks and place like such.,

 

[Jhhnn]

Good ruling but I would have preferred it went further and eliminated "excessive" altogether in favor of forfeiture only of property directly related to the crime (e.g. the drugs being sold, the gun used, etc.) rather than just whatever other stuff lying around the state could convince a judge was "reasonable."

It's also unclear how the ruling affects civil forfeiture or the taking of cash on the assumption that it's drug money. Like this-

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-...ttlement-means-no-more-highway-robbery-tenaha

The weasels will use the reasoning that it's not a fine, I'm sure...

 

[Texashiker]

Eminent domain irks me as well but without it we wouldn't have a lot of the nationl parks and place like such.,

We would not have highways, parks, lakes... etc.

To build the interstate highway system the government bought a massive amount of land. The same goes for flood control dams.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

We would not have highways, parks, lakes... etc.

To build the interstate highway system the government bought a massive amount of land. The same goes for flood control dams.

Agreed but even that should be reined in a little bit.
I’ve seen businesses claimed to be pubic parking lots that:

Made no sense because there is no reason to park there at all

Sat undeveloped for nearly two decades.

I’m all for it’s appropriate use, I’m not for it being used to close up a business you don’t like. They should use other means to do that if the business is so irresponsible.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Just means Donny will have hella money on his prison books. OJ Simpson still collected his 45,000.00 A MONTH NFL pension while he was in prison, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

I don`t agree with what OJ did at all!! But why should he not be able to draw his NFL pension?? A bit overkill (pardon the pun) if you think that he should not!
O.J. Simpson might have made more than $600,000 during his eight-plus years in prison.

After Simpson was granted parole on Thursday, that money is now his to spend and can't be touched by the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman, who won a civil judgment against Simpson in February 1997 that, including interest, is now worth about $65 million, a Goldman family lawyer told The Associated Press.

Unlike other money he might earn in the future, this particular income is O.J.'s because his NFL pension is protected by state law.

There has been much confusion as to how much Simpson was pulling in for his pension, but it's fairly easy to calculate since the terms of NFL player pensions are public. One factor that adds to the confusion is the uncertainty of the age Simpson elected to begin collecting on his pension.

Let's do the math: Simpson played in the NFL from 1969 to 1979. NFL players who played before 1982 get a monthly pension credit of $250 for every season played. Since Simpson played 11 seasons, that adds up to $2,750 a month.

As part of a settlement in 2011, former players were given an extra monthly payment of $124 per season played before 1975, and $108 per season played in subsequent years. Simpson played six seasons before 1975 (a monthly total of $744) and five seasons after ($540). That's an additional $1,284.

That adds up to $4,034 a month.

That's what O.J. would have made if he elected to start taking out his NFL pension at the age of 55. Getting paid that for 105 months in jail would mean O.J. made $423,570.

But if he waited until 65 -- he just turned 70 -- he would collect 2.619 times that, according to the formula. That would make his pension approximately $10,565 a month.

Based on 57 months in jail after his 65th birthday, that's $602,205.

 

[Brainonska511]

n/m

 

[Texashiker]

Agreed but even that should be reined in a little bit.
I’ve seen businesses claimed to be pubic parking lots that:

Made no sense because there is no reason to park there at all

Sat undeveloped for nearly two decades.

I’m all for it’s appropriate use, I’m not for it being used to close up a business you don’t like. They should use other means to do that if the business is so irresponsible.

Are you talking about when a city would seize property, then sell it to a developer?

I think the supreme court said that was a state or even local issue?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Are you talking about when a city would seize property, then sell it to a developer?

I think the supreme court said that was a state or even local issue?

No the thing I’m pointing to is two events I’ve witnessed in my life. Same town.
They eminent domained a smoke shop that sold tons of weed paraphernalia (before weed was so accepted) staying that the land was needed for intersection improvements which never really happened, at least upon the land that was seized. There was a lawsuit then some kind of settlement. I totally understand a town may not want a business that attracts crap to the area but get them on process stuff like is the building set up right, does it have proper fire egress, have the police patrol the area more. Don’t go the lazy route the expose the town to a lawsuit.
Second one was a go-go bar. They didn’t have a license for nude & liquor, they did have tons of police calls. They lost their liquor license so the place decided to do 18+ nude dancing juice bar (this was the early 90s). Town said no way, took the land for a parking lot. The place was in an industrial area in a very odd place. Nobody had any reason to park there. Lawsuit ensued, years and years went by. Club owner almost won then the city somehow go a bus stop moved to that unused parking lot. Not sure how that lawsuit ended up.
Again easy was to handle this would have been police theplace more, fine and remove them for drunks driving home from the place and be 100% anal about permits and timelines of paying fees.
Simply put do stuff the right way even if that takes longer.

 

[Vic]

Are you talking about when a city would seize property, then sell it to a developer?

I think the supreme court said that was a state or even local issue?

Eminent domain is different than asset forfeiture. With eminent domain, the state must show cause and provide just compensation for the property taken. Asset forfeiture usually occurs when a person is charged with the crime, the state will seize property, without compensation, that the state alleges may have used in connection with the crime or obtained using the proceeds from the criminal activity.
The major problem with asset forfeiture is that property is almost always seized prior to any criminal conviction, and the value of the property seized usually has no relation to the scope of the criminal activity.
For example, people have lost their homes merely from being charged (but not convicted) of misdemeanor possession of small amounts of weed.

And yes, this doesn't eliminate all asset forfeiture but it is a huge step in the right direction.

 

[UNCjigga]

I predict a whole bunch of southern, midwestern and southwestern “red” states will be raising taxes soon...

 

[evident]

Hope the guy gets a brand new land rover, or the value of the vehicle at the time it was seized.

 

[Viper1j]

Wow. His time in still must have been pretty cushy then.

I'm not sure there will ever be an upside to being locked in a cage like a zoo animal..

 

[Jhhnn]

Eminent domain is different than asset forfeiture. With eminent domain, the state must show cause and provide just compensation for the property taken. Asset forfeiture usually occurs when a person is charged with the crime, the state will seize property, without compensation, that the state alleges may have used in connection with the crime or obtained using the proceeds from the criminal activity.
The major problem with asset forfeiture is that property is almost always seized prior to any criminal conviction, and the value of the property seized usually has no relation to the scope of the criminal activity.
For example, people have lost their homes merely from being charged (but not convicted) of misdemeanor possession of small amounts of weed.

And yes, this doesn't eliminate all asset forfeiture but it is a huge step in the right direction.

It's a narrow ruling that leaves a lot more unsaid than said.