Supreme Court curbs power of government to impose heavy fines and seize property
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled to drastically curb the powers that states and cities have to levy fines and seize property, marking the first time the court has applied the Constitution's ban on excessive fines at the state level.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who returned to the court for the first time in almost two months after undergoing surgery for lung cancer, wrote the majority opinion in the case involving an Indiana man who had his Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling $385 of heroin.
"Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties," Ginsburg wrote. "They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue."
Also at National Review, SCOTUSblog, and NPR.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:05AM (2 children)
Probably. The problem is that in many of these cases the police confiscate property and then don't return it unless they're successfully sued. Which means that unless you can specifically prove that the property isn't the result of criminal activity, they get to keep it. And even if you do manage to win your case, you're not entitled to any compensation for the loss of the property in the mean time and you don't get court fees.
The fact that in many areas the police just get to keep what they found unless the court makes them give it back gives a massive incentive for the police to seize things in case they get to keep it.
In some cases, it can be tens of thousands of dollars, especially from immigrants that are used to carrying large sums of money to do business with.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:55AM
Agree.
I think if the police were honest, the answer to the question "Why do you seize so much in assets for relatively small crimes?" would be "Because we can".
Hey, they have to pay for all of that military surplus gear somehow!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by driverless on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:50AM
That's the disturbing thing about this, it's legal brigandage, something they used to hang people for up until a few hundred years ago.