since9
Campaign Veteran
The Article: https://news.yahoo.com/scotus-cracks-down-civil-asset-181114542.html
"The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that state and local governments are not exempt from the Constitutional prohibition against imposing “excessive fines” on citizens, significantly constraining the ability of law enforcement to seize the property of criminal suspects."
It's been a while since I recalled the Supreme Court ruling unanimously on anything. Sounds serious!
Personally, I view civil asset forfeiture right up there with any criminal sneaking into someone's home and taking what's not theirs.
For once, I agree with J. Ginsberg: “For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”
In this case, the forfeiture was more than four times in excess of the maximum allowed by Indiana law.
Personally, I believe ALL civil asset forfeitures are heinously wrong. If there's a punitive fine to be imposed, then by all means, impose the fine. But do NOT take people's belongings!!!
"The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that state and local governments are not exempt from the Constitutional prohibition against imposing “excessive fines” on citizens, significantly constraining the ability of law enforcement to seize the property of criminal suspects."
It's been a while since I recalled the Supreme Court ruling unanimously on anything. Sounds serious!
Personally, I view civil asset forfeiture right up there with any criminal sneaking into someone's home and taking what's not theirs.
For once, I agree with J. Ginsberg: “For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”
In this case, the forfeiture was more than four times in excess of the maximum allowed by Indiana law.
Personally, I believe ALL civil asset forfeitures are heinously wrong. If there's a punitive fine to be imposed, then by all means, impose the fine. But do NOT take people's belongings!!!
SCOTUS Cracks Down on Civil Asset Forfeiture
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that state and local governments are not exempt from the Constitutional prohibition against imposing “excessive fines” on citizens, significantly constraining the ability of law enforcement to seize the property of criminal suspects.Justice Ruth...
news.yahoo.com