[tbirrell]

Unfortunately, in the past, the SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture cases. But since Justice Thomas has spoken against it, I am cautiously optimistic that this might be the time that they rule in favor of the citizen. Civil asset forfeiture has gotten way out of hand. We really need some sort of precedent to start curbing the flagrant abuse we are seeing all over the country.

[rossdavidh]

My thoughts exactly. Thomas is, clearly, more on the law-and-order side of the current court, and his opinion (or the part of it quoted in this article anyway) sounded pretty negative on the practice, at least as it currently exists. It doesn't seem like he would have written in favor of taking the case if he wanted to stay with the status quo. But, I am not a lawyer.

[tathougies]

To be fair, civil forfeiture is against the law, so being on the law-and-order side is a good thing. Law-and-order also means applying law and order to the government.

[eric_h]

> SCOTUS tends to side with law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture cases

Has SCOTUS ruled on an asset forfeiture case before?

[briandear]

United States v. Ursery, No. 95-345