SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
A bizarre case comes out of the Texas court system -- landing squarely in the middle of a legal Bermuda Triangle where illegal searches meet civil asset forfeiture... and everything is still somehow perfectly legal. (via FourthAmendment.com)
[...] The Supreme Court of Texas examines the facts of the case, along with the applicable statutes, and -- after discarding a US Supreme Court decision that would have found in Herrera's favor -- decides there's nothing he can do to challenge the seizure. He can't even move to suppress the evidence uncovered following the illegal stop -- the same search that led to the state seizing his vehicle under civil forfeiture statutes.
[...] First, the court decides that the deterrent effect of suppressing the evidence is outweighed by the cost to society.
[...] The court moves on to dismiss the Supreme Court's 1965 decision (One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania), suggesting not only that things have changed too much over the past 50 years to consider it relevant, but also -- unbelievably -- that the seizure of a person's assets via civil forfeiture is not a form of punishment.
[...] By finding no remedy workable or worthwhile in the face of societal cost, the Texas Supreme Court has given law enforcement another way to salvage evidence obtained by illegal searches: simply seize the "container" (house, car, boat, etc.) the evidence was discovered in.
As defense attorney John Wesley Hall notes in his post on the case, this decision will also encourage more questionable asset forfeitures because the court here has declared it's unwilling to entertain notions of deterrence when dealing with "non-punitive" civil seizures.
Source: TechDirt
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Friday July 22 2016, @09:36AM
As discussed above, it is not the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional rule applies only when its deterrence benefits outweigh its heavy social costs
The constitution only applies if you think it should? THAT IS INSANE! Any judge that thinks this should be disbarred.
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Friday July 22 2016, @12:09PM
Only disbarring them would be insufficient in my opinion. I'd say that they should be shot, but I'm not sure I want to advocate murder. Maybe we could disbar them AND seize their assets. All of 'em. Leave the fuckers destitute.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @04:56PM
After all the saying is 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'
Can anyone tell me the last time any of those retainable in America? (And hint: I don't think the people up top are happy either, or they wouldn't keep foisting this shit on us.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @05:21PM
You can still get Life** in America.
**Life is limited to prison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @07:25PM
And hint: I don't think the people up top are happy either, or they wouldn't keep foisting this shit on us.
I don't follow your reasoning.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday July 24 2016, @09:53AM
They keep foisting this shit on us because they've already skimmed off all the easy money, now they are going after your possessions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @02:16PM
Nah, just seize his entire possessions on grounds of
(Score: 2) by VanessaE on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:49AM
I guess his computer was seized before he could finish :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @12:37AM
I'll add to that; disbarment should be followed by disrobement, followed by a public tarring and feathering, to be followed by being ball gagged, and ridden like a rented mule by a psychotic midget wearing cute little cowboy boots with spurs, followed by defenstration from the highest portal in town.