More Civil Forfeiture shenanigans, courtesy of the US Supreme Courtreason.com/2024/05/09/supreme-court-rules-no-due-process-right-to-preliminary-hearings-in-civil-asset-forfeiture-cases/
2287 sats \ 5 comments \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 10 May culture
The US Supreme Court, whose motto is "the cops are always right," has ruled that when thugs steal property from citizens, there's no right to a preliminary hearing, so when (as in this case) they seize cars being driven by friends or relatives who had drugs on them, the owners have to wait years to get them back. Cool.
The hope had been that Gorsuch and Thomas -- the two judges on the "conservative" part of the court who've shown some willingness to question police -- would grow some balls, but that failed to happen.
write
preview
related posts
121 sats \ 1 reply \ @hodlme 10 May
If they're going to argue that a preliminary hearing is redundant, then there needs to be a definition of the word "timely" that does not include phrases like "when we've finished investigating" or "eventually, if we get around to it". Set a reasonable time period after which your property is automatically returned if a hearing hasn't taken place yet. If there's a hearing later that rules that you're not entitled to the property then they can easily retrieve it.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @hodlme 10 May
Even better, cut a check to the innocent owner for at minimum the interest due on the assumed value of the property for the time it is out of their custody. Determining value is trivial when cash is seized at checkpoints presupposing some nefarious purpose.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @02bcd3eeb0 11 May
Police are gangs.
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 10 May
When it turns around, they will start making a fuss. The police are slowly becoming defunded, because people are noticing that they are OUR civil servants, not enforcers.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 10 May
"When police seize and then seek civil forfeiture of a car that was used to commit a drug offense, the Constitution requires a timely forfeiture hearing," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. "The question here is whether the Constitution also requires a separate preliminary hearing to determine whether the police may retain the car pending the forfeiture hearing. This Court's precedents establish that the answer is no: The Constitution requires a timely forfeiture hearing; the Constitution does not also require a separate preliminary hearing."
reply