This case is not looking good for the state of Indiana.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/28/b...set-forfeiture
TLDR: When Beyer's asked the solicitor general if it would be permissible to seize a persons Bugatti for driving 5 MPH over the speed limit, the solicitor general responded it would be forfeitable. All of this stems from seizing a $40,000 car over $400 worth of dope.
Glad to see it outed for the unconstitutional insanity that it is.
I look forward to seeing the result.
Civil Asset Forfeiture has lost its functionality as a tool for law enforcement in light of the glaring corruption it has contributed to. The fact that attorney generals are now arguing that it is Constitutional for them to seize property based on any crime is a glaring violation of the 8th Amendment. Use of seized property (houses/land) by government agents could potentially be construed as a violation of the 3rd Amendment as well (tough argument though, since so little 3rd Amendment precedent exists).
Important caveat, $40,000 car was provably paid for from a source that is likewise provably not from drug proceeds (in this case a life insurance payout).Originally Posted by Jakus
[PEDANT] attorneys general [/PEDANT]
If it were anyone but RevolverRob, I'd say cut the guy some slack, as that one's a bit obtuse.
If it were anyone but RevolverRob, I'd say cut the guy some slack, as that one's a bit obtuse.
Well, what good would Guerrero's post-grad degree in Pedantry do him if he couldn't trot it out and exercise it every now and again?
Those are hard years put in under the weight and grit of the grammatical grindstone.
Last edited by blues; 11-29-2018 at 06:37 PM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Last edited by RevolverRob; 11-29-2018 at 07:53 PM.
I must confess… I had exactly the same thought.
Last edited by GyroF-16; 11-29-2018 at 08:08 PM.
The state of Indiana didn’t seem to think it was an important caveat.
I tend to agree with you in principle. Seizing the assets of drug dealers started off as a great way to recoup the costs of the war on drugs. In the beginning it made all to much sense. Bust a guy with 50 lbs of dope, $50,000 cash, and a paid for $50,000 SUV seize it all as part of a criminal enterprise. Civil asset forfeiture seems to have grown legs from its humble criminal forfeiture beginnings.
This morning we had a sitting state attorney general argue in front of the United State Supreme Court that if someone were to exceed the posted speed limit by 5 MPH in Indiana that persons vehicle, and presumably whatever else in the vehicle the state wanted, could be seized under civil asset forfeiture regardless of the value of the vehicle relative the fine associated with a moving violation.
Maybe the justice could seize this attorney generals licsence to practice law under civil asset forfeiture...
Reply With Quote