patrick.net

So future Madoffs will get to keep their crap.

CaptainShuddup says

So future Madoffs will get to keep their crap.

Nah this was just a free for all for the police and local gubmnt. here are some techniques. Much as I don't like Obozo, he has to be saluted for taking this monumental decision. This is a great step toward freedom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html?_r=0

Took only 6 years of scandals, but credit where credit is due!

lostand confused says

The practice of local police taking property, including cash and cars, from people that they stop, and of handing it over to federal authorities, became common during the country's war on drugs in the 1980s.

Why do I have a feeling that the small-government conservatives on the Supreme Court will find a way to restore this?

Call me cynical...

jazz music says

HydroCabron says

conservatives on the Supreme Court will find a way to restore this

that felt great for about 5 minutes, thanks!

Obama is proposing a government solution to this problem. How well we know that government is never the solution.

States' rights: the states should be left to decide what fascist powers the police may wield within their borders.

CaptainShuddup says

So future Madoffs will get to keep their crap.

Pretty poor reading even for you. It said without evidence of a crime. Meaning the police will actually have to have some reason other than I say so to seize. Not that they can't seize.

lostand confused says

Obama finally does soemthing good-bans asset seizure by local police

How about prosecuting all the cops, politicians, and judges who committed grand larceny for decades? Or do their victims deserve no justice?

High Court's Decision Could Rein In a Controversial Police Practice - Supreme Court rules that constitutional ban on high fines does apply to states

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help efforts to rein in police seizure of property from criminal suspects—a practice that has dramatically increased in recent decades, the AP reports. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the court's opinion in favor of Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana. Police seized Timbs' $40,000 Land Rover when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin. Reading a summary of her opinion in the courtroom, Ginsburg noted that governments employ fines "out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence" because fines are a source of revenue. The 85-year-old justice missed arguments last month following lung cancer surgery, but returned to the bench on Tuesday.

Timbs pleaded guilty, but faced no prison time. The biggest loss was the Land Rover he bought with some of the life insurance money he received after his father died. Timbs still has to win one more round in court before he gets his vehicle back, but that seems to be a formality. A judge ruled that taking the car was disproportionate to the severity of the crime, which carries a maximum fine of $10,000. But Indiana's top court said the justices had never ruled that the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines—like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights—applies to states as well as the federal government. The case drew interest from liberal groups concerned about police abuses and conservative organizations opposed to excessive regulation. Timbs was represented by the libertarian public interest law firm Institute for Justice.

http://www.newser.com/story/271585/scotus-decision-could-rein-in-a-controversial-police-practice.html

This great! Finally!