Hacker News Reader

Comment by Neliquat | Hacker News Reader

This is a huge step forwards. I only hope asset forfiture is next.

I was unhappy about this:

"In Congress, the FAIR Act by Sen. Rand Paul and the DUE PROCESS Act by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner would both reform federal forfeiture laws so that property owners are innocent until proven guilty. "

An act of congress should not be required to regain constitutional rights. I would much prefer SCOTUS take one of the cases and slap them down at that level to set the highest precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, that byline seems to be misleading. Property owners ARE innocent until proven guilty. In civil asset forfeiture the PROPERTY is charged with a crime, not the owner.

Which is the ridiculous part. You shouldn't be able to charge property with a crime if you can locate the owner.

My understanding is that suing in rem began with ships, since they are quite valuable and movable at the same time. Thus, ships can be sued and arrested to prevent the asset from being removed from the jurisdiction. It has been expanded considerably since those simpler times, mostly I think to benefit the coffers of government agencies that could not convince legislators to provide them with bigger budgets.

Yes, that's called in rem jurisdiction (power over objects) and the resulting cases can sound very comical

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins

United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola

United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar

One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania

United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness

Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls

United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque

How does a 1958 Plymouth Sedan go about hiring a lawyer for representation? Along with standing, rights, representation....

> that's called in rem jurisdiction (power over objects)

Where did "power over objects" come from? Going strictly by the Latin, in rem means "into the thing" ("into" here marks that the thing is being attacked). "Thing" and "object" are basically synonymous, sure, but power is not mentioned at all.

In Rem = against a thing/object - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_rem

Jurisdiction = Power [of a court] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction

"The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word "power"."

>> I'm not a lawyer, that byline seems to be misleading. Property owners ARE innocent until proven guilty. In civil asset forfeiture the PROPERTY is charged with a crime, not the owner.

When the property is seized from the owner and sold at auction I don't think the property has been punished in any way, but the owner has been subject to seizure of property without cause. We agree, it's absurd.

Agreed; I actually thought asset forfeiture would be the subject of this article until I read it. Perhaps that's because I know that asset forfeiture is ongoing and never thought something like Colorado's "Exoneration Act" could ever exist.

From another article[1]: With this ruling the Nelson decision may set an important precedent to rain in another abusive civil proceeding called civil forfeiture. The parallels are striking. Through civil forfeiture, law enforcement can confiscate and keep cash, cars in real estate without securing a criminal conviction or filing charges against the owner. Perversely under civil forfeiture, even those not found guilty in criminal court can still forfeit their property in civil court, since the latter has a lower standard of proof.

So hopefully they are correct and we'll see a reexamination of asset forfeiture sooner than later.

[1] https://dawgonnit.com/2017/05/02/supreme-court-rejects-guilt...

I'm confused as to why it hasn't yet. There have been complaints about civil asset forfeiture since like the '90s? How has a case not been challenged and gone to the Supreme Court yet? Or has it gone already, and been upheld? I honestly don't understand how civil asset forfeiture can be constitutional, and I'd like to hear someone give any kind of argument otherwise.

There was a related case recently: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf

It's tough because the legal theory is established and sound depending on your point of view. It arises from maritime law around contraband and ships.

The problem is that the scope of how it's implemented today is much larger and more impactful. The result is that we have policy at the Federal level that effectively criminalizes cash. Because the legal foundation is sound, it is difficult for the courts to act -- we really need changes in law. That's why law originates from the Congress... to check the executive.

I don't know if I'd characterize it as a 'huge step'. I don't want to be negative but I think there are risks to clinging to this modicum of good news while the House is crumbling around us.

Agreed. Far too many reports of abuse of civil forfeiture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com