Civil forfiture falls under 8th amendment


If found guilty of a crime of profit the burden shifts to the person found guilty to prove that the property was not purchased with illegal funds…

In civil forfeiture guilt or innocence of the person has zero relevance to the civil lawsuit. The person is not even named in the lawsuit. The plantiff doesnt even have to inform the owner of the property that the property is being sued.


Actually there is civil forfiture in conjunction with a conviction. There is also civil forfiture without a conviction or charge against a person. There are two seperate things involved.


I have never approved of the police having the authority to confiscate property without due process…not to mention it’s a conflict of interests.


Civil forfeiture has, just like speed traps, become a major source of revenue for many municipalities. Basically a shakedown to fill the municipalities coffers. It needs to stop and I am happy with today’s ruling.


As an amusing side note to this, the town of Waldo, Florida, considered the #1 speed trap in the United States for many years, was actually forced to disband its police force in 2014 because of corruption stemming from the way it raising most of its funding. Now they actually have to tax their own residents like any other municipality, instead of shaking down poor weary travelers. :smile:


I agree. The partisan hog found an acorn.


I’d go further: punitive damages, non-monetary damages and civil liability related to a crime where there’s been no criminal conviction first should be out too.


So the Goldman’s should not have been able to sue oj?


He wasn’t convicted, so, no, they wouldn’t have been able to.


This is the best news ive heard in a while.


Um, why would conservatives oppose this? The government literally takes your property on suspicion and forces you to prove a negative to get it back.


Jeff sessions. I should edit to clarify criminal forfeiture as he was definitely for ramping it up.


You mean like when I was run over and the driver wasn’t even charged criminally, let alone convicted? Pass.


Anything that reduces the power, impact or influence of the government on the lives of the citizens of this country is a good thing. Especially the central government.


Its always been part of the tough on crime shtick.


Arguing on the backs of asserted hard cases is all you folks really have, huh?

If the underlying complaint is a crime and there is no conviction do you think that the purpose of the civil courts should be just so someone should be able to get your pound of flesh any which way they can?


Would tearing down “the wall” reduce the power, impact, and influence of the government on the lives of citizens? I believe it would, negatively.

According to your metric though, it would be a good thing.


In criminal cases conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. In some cases that is impossible to prove to the satisfaction of the jury and/or the judge. Especially attempted manslaughter or vehicular assault charges; those are rarely open and shut since the “unavoidable accident” unspoken clause can often get people off.

In a case like Tommy’s you need only prove that the defendant is financially liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff. That’s a much smaller hill to climb and it is a just system. You’re not saying that the defendant is guilty of a crime you are only saying that the results of their actions led to a financial burden on the plaintiff.


Border security and immigration are the purview of the central government.

I am not a fan of the wall, now I want it built.

On the lives of citizens? Of the US? How?


Frankly, accidents happen and people get hurt. Without demonstrating intent (which is where the criminal aspect comes into it) in such cases there should be no civil liability. The world might not be the best place if we roped in these lawsuits, but it would be a less litigious place.

It’s kinda like this recent Nike case: just because a flaw on one shoe (for a design that is probably sound and normally very reliable) that causes a problem that doesn’t mean the company should be held liable … not like if they knew there was a problem but made the shoe design anyway. No one intended to do wrong. Sometimes it should just suck to be someone.