[defen]

I think I understand the logic of civil forfeiture, but what is the justification for seizing a $40,000 vehicle when the state has only proven (according to the article) that he sold about $225 worth of drugs? It says he plead guilty to one charge - was the other for a significantly larger amount, that he was perhaps convicted of? Based on the info presented in the article it would seem difficult to argue that he acquired the Land Rover with ill-gotten funds.

[kevin_b_er]

The justification is the police department gets to sell the vehicle and use the cash. And sometimes they can use that for parties. Providing police with more toys is the justification for the theft of property.

1. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-bought-with...

2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/...

[logfromblammo]

Article states that both the Land Rover and the drugs were purchased using the payout from a life insurance policy. It is unclear whether any of the drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price.

As I recall, the whole concept of civil asset forfeiture was originally to discourage crime by removing the profit from criminal activity when the property was at hand, but the owner was outside the jurisdiction or otherwise unreachable. The long history of forfeiture is mostly seizing the property because the actual criminal was untouchable.

It has since morphed into cops acting as highwaymen to fund their activities beyond the bounds of their regular budget. In this case, the alleged criminal was actually charged, in custody, given due process criminally, and fined. The cops, not satisfied with the fines already levied, stole his car, too.

In my non-lawyerly opinion, if the Supreme Court would like for forfeiture to continue largely unchanged, they should reverse and return the guy's car, and cite so many case specifics that this would be practically useless as precedent. If they confirm, there is a chance that public backlash will eliminate forfeiture through legislatures. If they reverse on principles rather than specifics, that would set precedent easily usable by everyone better respected than a heroin dealer. I hope for the latter, but I don't think the current court has the right makeup to tear the filthy entrails out of forfeiture.

[defen]

> Article states that both the Land Rover and the drugs were purchased using the payout from a life insurance policy. It is unclear whether any of the drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price.

Money is fungible, so I would be sympathetic to an argument that claimed he had made in the vicinity of $40k from selling drugs (which could not be confiscated for whatever reason, maybe he spent it all on drugs for his own use or something) and so it was justified to seize his car.

But from the way it's described, I don't see why the state doesn't think it can justify confiscating an arbitrarily large amount of property from a person who has committed an arbitrarily small drug crime. e.g. if this guy owned a $400,000 house and sold $20 worth of drugs out of it, can they take his house?

[jpindar]

Yes, they can seize houses, even when the accused doesn't own the house but just lives there, and the owner was not aware of any crime taking place.

http://ij.org/action-post/how-a-philadelphia-family-lost-the...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/01/15/g...

[larkeith]

By my limited understanding, I believe that they could, as there is no limit akin to maximum fines with regards to civil forfeiture - as in this case, where the maximum of $10k was circumvented. Moreover, it does not require proof of guilt or a conviction, ripening its possibility for abuse.

[logfromblammo]

Well, there is a constitutional limitation on excessive fines and punishments. But the statutes typically don't specify.

They would allow seizure of one's shoes for jaywalking, and not just the shoes the offender was wearing, but all those in his closet, too. The laws as written are insufficiently protective against official abuse, so now that they have become routinely abused, it would be wise to revise.

[eric_h]

> It is unclear whether any of the drugs were ever sold at a premium over the original purchase price.

The number one reason for addicts to get into the business of selling drugs is to support their own habit - you can only do that if you turn a profit, even if you put that profit right back into buying drugs for yourself.

[djrogers]

It’s not a given that an oddity would be capable of running a successful dealing business. After all, they’ve already broken the #1 rule of dealing - don’t get high on your own supply...

[eric_h]

A successful business is not the goal of an addict who deals, just enough flow of cash/product to skim some (product) off the top for themselves.