The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that may result in some involuntary
reforms to state civil asset forfeiture laws, making it more difficult for states to confiscate
cars and houses and other property that's even tangentially used in the commission of
a crime.
That's kind of the state of law right now.
You commit a crime and buddy, they're going to grab up everything they can.
So, tell me what's developing with this?
What is the Supreme Court thinking about here?
Well, it seems as if they are certainly going to side on the Institute for Justice, which
is the organization that's providing an attorney for this particular individual.
Right.
So this case centers around this guy named Tyson Timbs of Indiana.
He was busted by undercover cops for selling them $400 worth of heroin.
In his punishment, he received a year of house arrest.
He also received fines and then they confiscated his $42,000 Land Rover.
So the Institute for Justice is basically arguing and did argue successfully before
a state court as well as an Indiana State Appeals Court.
That because this was his property, that it was a small amount that he was accused of
basically selling that it was a disproportionate, grossly disproportionate punishment to his
crime.
So it fell under the excessive fines ban under the Constitution's 8th Amendment.
So the appeals court upheld it.
A judge agreed with them initially and the appeals court upheld it, but the Indiana State
Supreme Court said, oh no, we don't want to do that.
Its property.
It doesn't apply.
That particular bill of rights section doesn't apply...
It clearly...
To states.
Yeah it clearly applies to states.
And the justices are saying that.
And there are other states that have said, you know what, we're not going to do that.
We're not going to; this law, they've actually interfered with the performance of certain
federal laws even on some of this forfeiture.
But I mean this is so basic.
It goes back to the Magna Carta, doesn't it?
Yes.
What was it, 1225 or something?
Yes.
So way back in the day, even back to piracy, they said that some of these laws originated
with dealing with pirates confiscating property, but different laws including, you know, going
back to England, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Gorsuch, Neil Gorsuch even mentioned
that in particular when they were arguing this case in Supreme Court.
He said this is going back, that there are deep history ties that protect a person against
excessive fines and that this clearly falls under excessive fines.
And they did argue against this particular solicitor general because he was saying, well,
it's because it's property, it shouldn't apply to states that this particular bill of rights,
part of it shouldn't be applied to states when every other part of the bill of rights
has been incorporated.
Right.
Okay, so there's one indicator already.
I mean, Gorsuch has always been in favor of just a vast amount of power in the hands of
government.
So now he's saying maybe we're overreaching when we use a marijuana bust, of 10 ounces
of marijuana to take the car, and the house, and you know, the vacation home.
That's how crazy this has become.
Yes.
As a matter of fact, it's so crazy that in some states there doesn't even have to be
an arrest.
You understand?
Yes.
They take this, take this property even before there's an official arrest and what ends up
happening is that person has to fight their way out.
No, you're exactly right.
And there was another one of the justices as well who argue the same thing.
Breyer, he apotheosized for this particular Indiana State Solicitor General saying under
your argument that because it's property, it doesn't apply to the states.
What if a driver's going five miles over the speed limit?
They could be in a jalopy or they can be an extremely expensive car under your rationale
and argument that can be confiscated.
And he was like, well, yeah, you're right.
So anyway, it certainly looks like they're leaning.
I would expect that kind of argument out of Breyer.
I don't know that I would expect a pro victim kind of argument out of Gorsuch, but you know
what, sometimes the Supreme Court will surprise you.
You're right.
Well, and they're raking in billions of dollars off these forfeitures, so you're right.
It will, they may surprise us.
Thanks for joining me, okay.
Thanks Pap.
For more infomation >> Live PD: Meth in His Underwear (Season 3) | A&E - Duration: 3:33. 
For more infomation >> Forged in Fire: Coal-Forged Blade Tests (Season 5, Episode 9) | History - Duration: 4:58. 
For more infomation >> Cheb Djalil 2019 - قاتلي عليك نموة POLO شافت - Duration: 5:41. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét