Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

Lawsuit in 3... 2... 1....

I'm sure they have the best intentions, but you just can't do this.

"confiscating goods that are invitations to thieves is one of the six exceptions in Connecticut law to the requirement for a search warrant"

they can just do this (unfortunately)

Has the practice been tested in federal court in any use substantially similar? Because its not clear to me how it could withstand challenge under either the Fourth Amendment (as applied to the states by way of the Fourteenth) or the bare Fourteenth Amendment due process, nor is the taking of private property for public purposes (presumably, here, the prevention of crime) accompanied by just compensation, as required by the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

A state statute can't generally just brush away federal constitutional requirements.

Wait, yeah, this doesn't sound right at all. Carroll provides exceptions for cars where there is probable cause. I too would be surprised that 'unlocked door' constitutes probable cause.

Though, here the police are explicitly giving the items back (if the backpack they take doesn't have weed, I guess). Civil forfeiture, as a practice, is legal but really shitty (if the police think you made money from a drug ring, you're never touching that money again, even if you're acquitted).

Yikes. Glad I live in Texas. Here, that would just be called "burglary".

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm

Well at least they might be able to do this if Connecticut were to secede from the United States. Not sure if you're from the U.S. or not, but we have a Bill of Rights which was originally intended to protect states from the federal government... But in this case it looks like we'll have to use it to protect us from our own states.

the 4th amendment has been incorporated to the states. states can't legislate/constitutionalize less protections than what federal law provides.. you know... because the supremacy clause

this should be killed by a federal court very fast

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Actually the justification for incorporating the bill of rights (well some of it) comes from the 14th amendment, not the supremacy clause.

The supremacy clause is, however, the basis for why state statute can't brush aside the protections in the federal constitution, including those incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendemnt.

> Not sure if you're from the U.S. or not, but we have a Bill of Rights which was originally intended to protect states from the federal government...

This language seems overly patronising, and unlikely to contribute to the important point that the rest of your post makes. I think it doesn't matter whether or not GP is from the US.

I would like to get an opinion on that claim from somebody who doesn't have a vested interest in it being true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com