Re:Cops still take more stuff from people than burglars do
by specialist on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @07:57PM
(#36979539)
As I said, IANAL. Sorry, I'm not following. This stuff breaks my brain.
> No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought...
Are you saying these "Robin Hood" style civil forfeitures are simply not legal (constitutional)? Vs some kind of cunning legal hack?
Re:Cops still take more stuff from people than burglars do
by dragonwriter on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @08:11PM
(#36979651)
> Are you saying these "Robin Hood" style civil forfeitures are simply not legal (constitutional)?
No, I'm saying criminal charges are only required for criminal types of sanctions, and what civil forfeiture does isn't in that scope.
That's not to say I think its fine: I think its often bad for policy reasons, and the details of some of the current uses (especially state/local seizures under federal law) have particular constitutional and policy issues.
For this to make sense, civil forfeiture and in rem proceedings against property would have to postdate the Fourth Amendment and be a reaction to it, but they don’t.
No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought, not because it is an in rem proceeding. Its not an end run around either Fourth Amendment search and seizure protection or Fifth Amendment due process, both of which apply. As does the Eight Amendment Excessive Fines clause.