How about some good news for a change?

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
State asset forfeiture laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-constitutional-protection-against-excessive-fines-applies-to-state-actions/2019/02/20/204ce0d4-3522-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.01313b0c1cb8

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.

He drew wide support from civil liberties organizations who want to limit civil forfeitures, which they say empower localities and law enforcement to seize property of someone suspected of a crime as a revenue stream.
 
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
Civil forfeiture laws suck. Many innocent people are relieved of cash without ever being charged. One guy had $15K taken during a "traffic stop" for DWB. He told cops that the money was to buy a car and gave them the seller's name and everything else. Nope, too pat. No black guy has that much money legally and why would he be driving halfway across the country for a car? Never got his cash back.
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
hotrodharley said:
Civil forfeiture laws suck. Many innocent people are relieved of cash without ever being charged. One guy had $15K taken during a "traffic stop" for DWB. He told cops that the money was to buy a car and gave them the seller's name and everything else. Nope, too pat. No black guy has that much money legally and why would he be driving halfway across the country for a car? Never got his cash back.
Click to expand...
I just had a 'friend' get $12k cash seized at the airport in fla. No charges.....last week
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
hotrodharley said:
Civil forfeiture laws suck. Many innocent people are relieved of cash without ever being charged. One guy had $15K taken during a "traffic stop" for DWB. He told cops that the money was to buy a car and gave them the seller's name and everything else. Nope, too pat. No black guy has that much money legally and why would he be driving halfway across the country for a car? Never got his cash back.
Click to expand...
I think this was about taking a vehicle for a crime that had a penalty that was less than the value of the car. ($10,000 maximum fine <<< $42,000 replacement value of the vehicle) Timbs was able to prove he obtained the Landrover using money from an inheritance, not drug sales. If he couldn't prove that would he have won this case? Does the ruling mean the state must prove instead of the defendant? I think it should. But I think a lot of things that aren't true.

From what I've read (not a lawyer or even close) LEO can still take money if they can prove it came from illegal activities. What is not clear is whether or not the practice of taking cash on the claim of suspicion and forcing the suspect to prove he obtained the money legally was struck down. If anybody can clarify, would be appreciated.
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I think this was about taking a vehicle for a crime that had a penalty that was less than the value of the car. ($10,000 maximum fine <<< $42,000 replacement value of the vehicle) Timbs was able to prove he obtained the Landrover using money from an inheritance, not drug sales. If he couldn't prove that would he have won this case? Does the ruling mean the state must prove instead of the defendant? I think it should. But I think a lot of things that aren't true.

From what I've read (not a lawyer or even close) LEO can still take money if they can prove it came from illegal activities. What is not clear is whether or not the practice of taking cash on the claim of suspicion and forcing the suspect to prove he obtained the money legally was struck down. If anybody can clarify, would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
the guy that lost $12K contacted a lawyer. Lawyer said it would cost $10k for him to file papers to get it back but the chances weren't very good anyway.....throw good money after bad. turn a 12k loss into a 20k loss...
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
the guy that lost $12K contacted a lawyer. Lawyer said it would cost $10k for him to file papers to get it back but the chances weren't very good anyway.....throw good money after bad. turn a 12k loss into a 20k loss...
Click to expand...
In a business where sales of MJ is legal but banks won't allow a business account. Of course sometimes big money has to be held in a safe or briefcase. I've heard of the same happening to others. They even took money from a legal MJ dispensary owner's safe in his home a few years ago. And, yeah, legal fees would wipe out any incentive to try to get it back. >:( Catch 22.

I don't think this ruling strikes down that kind of action. Maybe another case is needed to go to the court for anyther ruling on this.

From NYTimes

“People are still going to lose their property without being convicted of a crime, they’re still going to have their property seized,” Mr. Hottot said. “The new thing is that they can now say at the end of it all, whether I’m guilty or not, I can argue that it was excessive.”

Justice Thomas did not address objections to modern civil forfeiture practices on Wednesday. In a 2017 opinion, though, he wrote that “this system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.” His opinion cited reporting from The Washington Post and The New Yorker.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
Can I get my oz. of weed back from that 1975 totally unjustified pull over pinch?

Fucking 3 stage T-Bird turn signals sucked, the 1st and 3rd light in the sequence still worked.
Bastards.
Click to expand...
I would be highly curious to check out what passed for a good ounce back then. I have bought bags in quite a few countries and I can appreciate a bag for what it is. I am less than 40 years old but my dad talks about the old days.

In fact I rather enjoy taking the time to roll up a nice one after picking a few seeds and sticks out. I liken it to my preference for natural tits.
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I would be highly curious to check out what passed for a good ounce back then. I have bought bags in quite a few countries and I can appreciate a bag for what it is. I am less than 40 years old but my dad talks about the old days.

In fact I rather enjoy taking the time to roll up a nice one after picking a few seeds and sticks out. I liken it to my preference for natural tits.
Click to expand...
Oh, they always weighed 28+ gms.

But the seeds, the seeds!

Maybe you got 23 out of them. Sometimes.
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
hotrodharley said:
Actually we used to measure by fingers. A 5 finger bag for $10. 4 finger bags were rips. 3 fingers for $5. Yes seedy. I never paid by weight until 1969 in California. Weighed ounce $20.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right.

$20 ounce, $15 lid. $10 dime. $5 nickel bag.

Oz. - 3/4 - 1/2 - 1/4 oz.

I remember when a nickel was a nickel. Lol.

Could get lbs. (seedy stringy Mex) for $75 if you bought 5 at once.

After you rough cleaned it, had 4 lbs left. Lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top