Senate passes sweeping criminal justice reform bill

[seer]

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...mbs-v-indiana/

The case on its legality is before the SCOTUS right now.

Hopefully they do the right thing! Hey if they convict a drug dealer and such, then take their stuff, but not before...

[Sparko]

Back in the early 90s one of my friend's father ran a small nursery and would occasionally fly down to Florida to buy plants. He always managed to get a better deal if he paid cash so he'd carry roughly $12,000 in a money belt. One time he was stopped at the airport on the way down and searched. His money was seized and even though he was able to show that he regularly made purchases of various (legal) plants on such trips, and paid cash when he did so, he was told that he had to prove that this time he wasn't going down to buy drugs. Needless to say proving such a thing was essentially impossible. The loss of the money pretty much destroyed his business and he was forced to get a job working in the lawn and garden center of a K-Mart.

Today the criminals can just use the cash to buy bitcoin or similar and then convert that back to cash anywhere in the world. They just need to find a shady person to sell them the bitcoin for cash.

[rogue06]

Today the criminals can just use the cash to buy bitcoin or similar and then convert that back to cash anywhere in the world. They just need to find a shady person to sell them the bitcoin for cash.

You don't even need a shady character. There is an "ATM" where you can buy bit coins and get a number and use that to transfer a deposit a couple miles from my house.

[Sparko]

Today the criminals can just use the cash to buy bitcoin or similar and then convert that back to cash anywhere in the world. They just need to find a shady person to sell them the bitcoin for cash.

well scratch that! Apparently they are now seizing bitcoin wallets with Civil Forfeiture!

https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-a...ryptocurrency/
http://fortune.com/2018/02/21/govern...tcoin-auction/

[Leonhard]

$10,000 is "the magic number" that makes things look hinky. It's dumb, because organized crime knows the rules, and can simply do multiple transactions under that amount.

Thankfully I never have that kind of cash on me.

What I don't get is why the money isn't simply returned to a person if no crime can be demonstrated under court of law? And why does the money go to the police department, and they become freely in charge to distribute and do with it as they see fit? And why, if a person shows up and defends their case in court and wins it, are the settlement charges paid not by the police department but by the federal taxes?

That seems to set up a perfect incentivised system for encouraging and supporting police corruption.

It doesn't seem unreformable though. One could start by making the money not go to the police officers, which would do a lot to disincentivise them from making searches.

[Sparko]

Thankfully I never have that kind of cash on me.

What I don't get is why the money isn't simply returned to a person if no crime can be demonstrated under court of law? And why does the money go to the police department, and they become freely in charge to distribute and do with it as they see fit? And why, if a person shows up and defends their case in court and wins it, are the settlement charges paid not by the police department but by the federal taxes?

That seems to set up a perfect incentivised system for encouraging and supporting police corruption.

It doesn't seem unreformable though. One could start by making the money not go to the police officers, which would do a lot to disincentivise them from making searches.

I think they have to share it with the feds. But this is an example of good intentions gone wrong. Which is why I am against such things as gun control. It is too easy for such things to end up becoming government overreach and corruption.

[Terraceth]

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...mbs-v-indiana/

The case on its legality is before the SCOTUS right now.

Only sort of. The case concerns an instance of forfeiture, but the actual question in the case is far more narrow, concerning whether the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against (i.e. applies to) the states or not.

[Terraceth]

Only sort of. The case concerns an instance of forfeiture, but the actual question in the case is far more narrow, concerning whether the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against (i.e. applies to) the states or not.

Oh, so update on this: As I sort of expected, the Supreme Court gave an answer more narrow than some might have hoped for, but still could have reaching implications. Timbs v. Indiana did two things: It confirmed previous cases that civil asset forfeiture does count as a fine under the Excessive Fines Clause, and it established the Excessive Fines Clause as incorporated against the states, i.e. states can't perform civil asset forfeiture that's excessive when compared to the crime. This was something that a lot of people assumed, but was never explicitly ruled until now.

On the downside to those who dislike civil asset forfeiture, or at least its abuses, that's largely all the court did. Exactly what constitutes "excessive" wasn't clearly defined, and they didn't even give a definite answer as to whether the case in question was excessive or not, instead sending it back to the lower courts to figure out.

Notably, this was a unanimous opinion... well, sort of. As is his wont, Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion that essentially said the majority opinion reached the right result but in the wrong way. But regardless of difference in rationale, all 9 justices agreed in the judgment itself.