sakinago
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 5,320
- 1,632
Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care, despite it being an issue that all sides should agree on (unless you blindly trust LE so much). It’s also unconstitutional for different reason other than excessive fines, which is a tougher case to make...which tells me RBG is not of fan of property rights and LE over reach...criminal justice reform is the political flavor of choice. Ruling against CAFS on the grounds of excessive fines ain’t gonna do shit for property rights, or address what is actually wrong with CAFS. They’ll still seize the property, but maybe give some back.Is the left finally paying attention to civil asset forfeit seizure?Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.
“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.”
The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.
The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.
"finally"?