sbobet แจกเครดิตฟรี RightNation.US sbobet แจกเครดิตฟรี
sbobet แจกเครดิตฟรีNews (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

สมัครงานบ่อนคาสิโนพม่า_W88คาสิโนออนไลน์ _เล่นเกมออนไลน์ฟรี_เติมเงินเล่นสล็อต_วิธีเล่นบาคาร่าให้ได้เงินw88

sbobet แจกเครดิตฟรีJump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Supreme Court Leans Toward Car Owner In Excessive Fines Dispute Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,316
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 29 November 2018 - 02:10 AM

Quote

Supreme Court Leans Toward Car Owner In Excessive Fines Dispute

The Daily Caller
4:53 PM 11/28/2018 | Politics
Kevin Daley | Supreme Court Reporter

excerpt:

  • The Supreme Court is poised to extend the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines to the states.
  • Supporters of this move hope it will curtail police practices like asset forfeiture, in which police seize property connected to the commission of the crime.
  • The case will likely scramble the usual ideological coalitions on the high court.


The Supreme Court seemed poised to curtail the power of states to assess fines Wednesday, when it heard a case respecting the reach of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines.

The high court’s decision could also go some way toward limiting asset forfeiture, a police practice whose abolition has become a cause celebre for civil libertarians.

Wednesday’s case arose when police seized a Land Rover belonging to Tyson Timbs, an Indiana man who was arrested and convicted on a minor drug charge. Timbs, who began using heroin after developing an opioid addiction, was arrested for executing two drug deals with undercover officers.

The total value of the transactions was $385. The Land Rover is valued at $42,000. Timbs is suing to recover his car. The Institute for Justice, a public interest law practice, represented him before the Supreme Court.

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution provides that: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.?br />

*SNIP*

“This was an instrumentality of the crime,?Roberts said at Wednesday’s argument. “This is how he carried the drugs. I think it’s pretty well established your car can be forfeited.?br />
Other justices, like Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said those forfeitures are a fine in the sense that they are punitive, and sometimes disproportional to the underlying offense. To illustrate this point, Justice Stephen Breyer asked if police could seize a Bugatti if the driver was stopped for speeding. Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher said they could.

“If we look at these forfeitures that are occurring today ?many of them seem grossly disproportionate to the crimes being charged,?Sotomayor said.


**SNIP**

LINK

I'm with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor and Kagan on this one. Roberts can pound sand... again. Would love to see Civil Asset Forfeiture abolished, or at least extremely curtailed to prevent abusive practices. Guess we'll have to wait and see the scope of this ruling.

As far as incorporation goes, NO state should be empowered to restrict rights/freedoms enumerated in the BoR.
0

#2 User is offline   DJGoody 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 07-June 16

Posted 29 November 2018 - 12:11 PM

"Other justices, like Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said those forfeitures are a fine in the sense that they are punitive, and sometimes disproportional to the underlying offense. To illustrate this point, Justice Stephen Breyer asked if police could seize a Bugatti if the driver was stopped for speeding. Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher said they could."





This right here should say it all!
0

#3 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,316
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted Yesterday, 12:33 AM

View PostDJGoody, on 29 November 2018 - 12:11 PM, said:

"Other justices, like Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said those forfeitures are a fine in the sense that they are punitive, and sometimes disproportional to the underlying offense. To illustrate this point, Justice Stephen Breyer asked if police could seize a Bugatti if the driver was stopped for speeding. Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher said they could."





This right here should say it all!

Exactly.



Quote

At U.S. Supreme Court Argument, Indiana Claims It Can Forfeit Cars For Speeding, Minor Drug Crimes

Forbes
Nick Sibilla
Nov 29, 2018, 12:30pm

excerpt:

Arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Indiana’s solicitor general was already trying to defend confiscating a $42,000 Land Rover taken from Tyson Timbs, who sold less than $400 worth of drugs. Before the day was through though, Solicitor General Thomas Fisher found himself arguing that the Constitution would let him forfeit luxury cars caught going five miles over the speed limit.


*SNIP*


The highest courts in 14 states, as well as two federal appeals courts, have all ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does bind the states; the Montana and Mississippi Supreme Courts have ruled it does not. After granting Timbs?cert petition in June, the U.S. Supreme Court now will resolve this question once and for all.

Even before Wednesday’s argument, which saw Gorsuch and Sotomayor offering some of the harshest criticisms of civil forfeiture, the Timbs case had already scrambled many ideological lines. Dozens of organizations filed 18 separate amicus briefs in support of Timbs. As a result, progressive heavyweights like the ACLU, the NAACP, and the Southern Poverty Law Center found themselves on the same side as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Judicial Watch, and other conservative groups. Meanwhile, left-leaning municipal organizations, including the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, jointly filed the only amicus brief agreeing with Indiana’s position.

(Notably, while law enforcement lobbies have been some of the loudest opponents of civil forfeiture reform, groups like the Fraternal Order of Police and the National District Attorneys Association decided to stay out of this Supreme Court battle.)

“Are we trying to avoid a society that’s like the Star Chamber??asked Sotomayor, referencing the 17th Century English court that became notorious for turning court proceedings into revenue streams. “If we look at these forfeitures that are occurring today,?she added, “many of them seem grossly disproportionate to the crimes being charged.?br />
LINK

Strange bedfellows... :wacko:


And pretty predictable. Of course localities want to keep CAF alive and well, and probably even expanded. It IS a major revenue stream for them and they've even admitted it, rather arrogantly and/or boastfully at times. I really hope the SCOTUS brings the hammer down hard on such an abusive practice.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users