[coldseattle]

Maybe so, but did you read the article? This is a person who the Government decided to do a forfeiture after a conviction. I'm glad the SCOTUS is looking at this because it seems to be adding additional penalties after a conviction. However, in the past additional penalties implemented after a conviction (like sex offender registries) have been upheld.

[pc86]

It's not a good thing SCOTUS is looking at a convicted drug dealer for a CAF case. If this gets upheld the bar to get another CAF case in front of the Court will be even higher, and police departments will continue stealing from citizens on the side of the highway with impunity.

[MachineShedFred]

I think this case is actually a really good one to look at, as there are clear 8th Amendment issues. He already was sentenced for the crime in question, but the asset seized has over 4x the value of the maximum fine for the crime he was guilty of.

How is that not "cruel or unusual" ? Also, it presents a hardship for his rehabilitation- he needs to have employment as terms of his release, and if he can't get to work because of the forfeiture of his means of transportation, that presents additional burden to holding up his end of the agreement.

He was handed a $40,000 penalty for a $250 crime because the law enforcement agency wanted to sell his Land Rover. How is that justice?