Hacker News Reader

Comment by Splendor | Hacker News Reader

This article has left me confused. Does this mean civil forfeiture is unconstitutional? Or just that it can only be used if it does not constitute an "excessive" fine?

View on HN

Only if it's not excessive.

How disappointing. This leaves individuals forced to prove that a fine was excessive after police have already seized their property.

This is largely a straightforward thing to do - and this ruling will make police departments much more hesitant to seize civil assets.

Is it straightforward to do without a lawyer, though? What if you can't afford one?

The decision from the supreme court will change when police try to attach to money, it will no longer be a straightforward matter to do so, and is much more likely to be attached to a criminal case now - which means a lawyer would be involved.

There will be some cases where that's likely to be a slam-dunk. IIRC there were some cases in the western states some years back where relatively small amounts of drugs (personal-use levels) were used as reasons for seizure of some large farms or ranches.

In at least one of those cases I think it would have to be the estate pursuing it though.

TLDR;

The trial court ruled that seizing the Land Rover constituted an excessive fine under the 8th ammendment, so was not protected.

The state supreme court ruled that the US supreme court had never said that the 8th amendment applies to state governments.

The US supreme court just said "Ok, now it does"

Now state trial court judges can use the 8th amendment to deny civil forfeiture attempts. It also now serves as a basis to appeal civil forfeiture rulings.

While this seems like a positive ruling, all it does is extend the rules that cover the federal government to the states. Given the abuses of the federal governement, I don't see much hope for this ruling changing anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com