Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday July 22 2016, @08:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the many-interpretations-to-be-had dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday July 22 2016, @10:00PM

    by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Friday July 22 2016, @10:00PM (#378815)

    Civil asset forfeiture is based on the idea that they are not depriving you of property, because that property was never yours to deprive you of.

    The case was about the exclusionary rule under the 4th amendment, not the 5th. So, it's possible that we'll hear more about this case going forward.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @02:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @02:13PM (#379049)

    Civil asset forfeiture is based on the idea that they are not depriving you of property, because that property was never yours to deprive you of.

    Then they should be required to prove that the assets were obtained as the result of a crime. Currently not only is a conviction not required for this legalized theft, you don't even need to be charged with a crime. They can just steal your shit for no reason at all and you have absolutely no recourse.