Following up on the Timbs v. Indiana civil asset forfeiture case mentioned on this thread, some good news has been handed down by SCOTUS:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose financial penalties and seize property.
The decision delighted critics of civil asset forfeiture, who welcomed it as a new weapon in their war against what’s been labeled “policing for profit” — the practice of seizing cash, cars and other property from those convicted, or even suspected, of committing a crime.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the court’s decision , saying the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution at all levels.
It’s not an outright ban on this inherently corruptive practice, but it’s a step along the path to the holy grail of a ban. No, let me retract that, because holy grails are never attained, and I believe that if the ACLU and allied organizations continue to pursue this goal, they can achieve a complete ban on this practice.
And that would be a good thing.
Politicians need to think about metrics and tying compensation to those goals, not just willy-nilly turning the police off on their own insofar as funding goes. If society wants a police force, then it should fund it properly through appropriations, not by forcing the police to forage for themselves. While I know that at least some of my conservative friends would just call it corruption which needs to be corrected, I think the proper label is mismanagement by the politicians.
And I don’t care if I’ve just dissed Democrats or Republicans, or pissed in either group’s holy water. Utilizing civil asset forfeiture is an error in judgment.
Note the unanimity of the Court as well. This isn’t a political matter, this is a matter of proper justice.
