Supreme Court Limits Civil Asset Forfeiture

freevoluntarist (42)in #trump • 6 years ago

In a major blow to the Trump administration, the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that Civil Asset Forfeiture will be limited in all 50 states due to excessively high fees and abuses from police and officials.

Civil asset forfeiture can be seen as a breach of the 8th amendment within the United States Constitution. It permits the authorities to take private belongings if the authorities simply believe that object or money was obtained from illicit practices, without a hearing or due process. Objects include cars, jewelry, electronics, and property (like offices, houses, shops, warehouses, etc). Supporters of it believe that this will help slow down drug trafficking and can be used to generate revenue from drug offenders. Opponents believe it is morally wrong and likely to be abused for political gain, or personal, while it also being blatantly unconstitutional.

All 9 court justices ruled in favor of the expansion of the excessive fine ban, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg being the judge who wrote the motion. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed to the position by former President Bil Clinton, and she assumed office August 10th, 1993. The ruling will apply the federal excessive fine ban to all states in the US, even if it does face opposition in states like Indiana.

Donald Trump is in favor of civil asset forfeiture, and eminent domain, and planned to use it to enforce his border policy by using the money taken from Americans and criminals to build his national border wall. He is currently facing extreme opposition from both the left and the right.

Abuses of Civil Asset Forfeiture

In Detroit, police seized more than 40 cars from "Funk Night" at the Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit. The police came because The CAID did not have a liquor license to serve alcohol. They claimed that if you drove your vehicle to go to the event then you were complicit in the crime that CAID committed and must have your property seized for associating yourself with a university without a liquor license. Attendees had to pay $900 just to get their cars back, and even one car was seized from over a mile away from the location associated with the party. A federal court judge ruled the seizure unconstitutional.