Days Numbered for Asset Forfeiture?
Thursday, November 29, 2018
I'm glad to hear that at least one Supreme Court justice can't believe that he is having to consider whether the Bill of Rights applies to state law enforcement:
The case, Timbs v. Indiana, concerns a man whose $40,000 Land Rover was confiscated when he was arrested for a $400 drug deal. After reading the article, I think the argument that the fine is excessive is a good one. Interested readers can read a post at the Institute for Justice for legal background, including a timeline of the case. The post reads in part:The court has formally held that most of the Bill of Rights applies to states as well as the federal government, but it has not done so on the Eighth Amendment's excessive-fines ban.
Image via Wikipedia.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was incredulous that Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher was urging the justices to rule that states should not be held to the same standard.
"Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, general," Gorsuch said to Fisher, using the term for holding that constitutional provisions apply to the states.
Justice Stephen Breyer said under Fisher's reading police could take the car of a driver caught going 5 mph (8 kph) above the speed limit.
The case shines a spotlight on the excessive fines and fees often imposed by governments, and showcases yet another example of the inevitable abuse of power that results when government employs civil forfeiture, a process through which police and prosecutors seize someone's property and keep the proceeds for themselves, thus giving law enforcement an incentive to maximize profits rather than seek the neutral administration of justice.We should know the Court's answer by June, according to the report.
The case has attracted amicus briefs from a diverse coalition of groups calling on the Court to hold that the Excessive Fines Clause applies nationwide. These groups include the Cato Institute, American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, NAACP, Constitutional Accountability Center, and Pacific Legal Foundation. All of the amicus briefs can be downloaded from the Supreme Court's website. [link in original]
-- CAV
2 comments:
This would be a nice first step, but the rot goes deeper, as illustrated by the concept of a speed trap. Many small towns (I can't speak to larger cities) use the police force as a means to generate revenue--they use the fines from various minor crimes to not only pay for the police force, but to supplement taxation to supply the general fund.
From a political standpoint it makes sense. No one likes being taxed, and no one wants to appear soft on crime. So it's easy to decide to make the criminals pay for the cost of government. The problem is, it's also extremely easy to draft laws creating more and more crimes.
This is a very serious problem, because it undermines the concept of Rule of Law. The average encounter with a police officer is a hostile one in most places these days, and that trains us to think of police as the enemy. At the same time, the police are trained to think of ordinary citizens with contempt. We are a resource to be mined, and little more, according to this view. The results of this divide are apparent everywhere today.
Honestly, I feel some sympathy for the police. They are caught in the worst position. The politicians are using the police as cannon fodder; it's not the politicians who face the screaming hoards of thugs, but the policemen, despite the fact that the politicians, not the police, are the proximal cause of the problems (the ultimate cause is always philosophy). That said, the police sanction it. I think this is one reason the police are being increasingly militarized, not just in material but in mentality--it's a financially cheap incentive, one that gives the police the illusion that they are heroic (some police genuinely are heroic; they tend to be contemptuous of the militaristic mentality, in my experience). It also further divides the police from ordinary citizens.
In short, I think that while ending asset forfeiture is a much-needed first step, we cannot stop there. Asset forfeiture is merely a symptom of a much, much deeper problem with the concept of police in the USA.
Dinwar,
Yes. Abusing speed limits for revenue is an abuse I'd also like to see ended. And I think it does undermine respect for the rule of law.
Off the top of my head, though, I think fixing it lies further down the road than this simply because most people have a hard time seeing the abstract principle behind the annoyance of an individual speeding ticket.
It may be one of those things that signal a cultural shift ("You'll know when we've turned the tide when..." ) than something we can address head-on any time soon.
Gus
Post a Comment