New limits on seizures for G&F violations in the future?

[VikingsGuy]

A unanimous SCOTUS just ruled that state and local agencies are bound by constitutional limits on excessive fines, particularly those targeting forfeiture beyond traditional statutory penalties. My guess is this signals the end of the stories where a guy loses a $50,000 suburban when caught with an unlicensed buck/doe in the back. But given how the states love the money, I am guessing they will stretch this out as long as possible. I am no fan of criminal behavior and tend to the "law and order" side of things, but this has become about funding state agencies, not about a fair justice system and the SCOTUS ruling was long overdue (and a no brainer - if not for all the "free" $$$$ this would have never been pushed by the states to this point in the first place.

In the case today, the guy lost a $40,000 vehicle for sell $400 worth of heroin where the crime itself was subject to a maximum $10,000 fine.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/...ban-on-excessive-fines-applies-to-the-states/

 

[1100RemingtonMan]

I am one that thinks it has gotten out of hand. We had a case where some guys were netting fish in Iowa and caught 18 catfish netting they were fined $ 18,500 plus the State wanted to keep two boats and motors and trailers and the net.
Yes they needed a fine but let’s get real, this was over the top IMHO.

 

[Gut Shot]

In Tims vs. Indiana the vehicle seized was not purchased with ill gotten gains from Tims' drug dealing.

Civil asset seizures are mostly BS. No government agency should profit from someone's crimes. Furthermore, there are plenty of cases out there where no conviction was obtained but assets were still taken.

 

[LuketheDog]

I'm all for seizure of equipment being used "in the act" of the crime, I don't know why that falls within the definition of a 'fine'...

 

[JLS]

I'm all for seizure of equipment being used "in the act" of the crime, I don't know why that falls within the definition of a 'fine'...

It’s considered a monetary taking. Courts can order forfeiture of items as part of a judgement.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm all for seizure of equipment being used "in the act" of the crime, I don't know why that falls within the definition of a 'fine'...

Because crime or not it is your personal property and the government cannot simple take it without cause. That cause can be penalty, but that penalty must not be excessive per the constitution. So if I park a $60,000 SUV in a no parking zone it would be unreasonable to create a $60,000 fine for a parking violation by seizing the vehicle. Also, there are due process problems because if one person commits a crime with a $2,000 vehicle and another commits a similar or lesser crime with a $50,000 vehicle the punishments are grossly different regardless of the crime or the actor. Plus, while you may drive your vehicle to buy drugs, you may also drive your vehicle to get to work or to take your elderly mother to the doctor, it is not just simply “equipment” of the crime.

Legally, this one wasn’t even close. It was 9-0, but if there were 20 justices it would have been 20-0. This practice may have started as a law and order idea, but undeniably it became simply a money gathering activity. In MN there is a law that even carves out what percentage of every seizure different departments get, and requirements that departments notify one another of their seizures so they can ensure they are sharing the funds properly between them — it is simply ridiculous.

I do think weapons seizures in hunting or violent crimes will pass muster, as will cash seizures tied to the “fruits of the crime”, and general seizures that at least stay under the generalized penalty max for the type of violation (such as $10,000 max for felonies, etc). But the largess of free “off the books” funding for a variety of state and local agencies is dead man walking - as it should.

 

[MTGomer]

The real gross injustice is civil asset forfeiture without conviction or even being charged. https://www.forbes.com/sites/instit...-now-hes-getting-his-money-back/#39734ade4aca
With a conviction I’m not opposed within reason. If you’re guilty of poaching you should lose your vehicle and your weapon.
If you speed, should you lose your corvette? Probably not.

 

[hossblur]

I don't like forfeiture. Poaching should be a felony with actual jail time. One needs only look at what auction tags go for to see that the wrist slaps handed out don't match the value of the poached animal.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Poachers beware. Best to have a lein on your vehicle as I doubt a vehicle with a lein could be seized as easily as one you owned.

 

[Doublecluck]

Still remeber witnessing a game warden in California give a guy a ticket on a state wildlife area for unloading his shotgun in a parking area rather than in the blind before walking back to get his lunch. When he was done he told the guy he was going to let him keep his shotgun and acted like he was doing him a favor. One of those WTF moments in my life. Glad this passed putting some common sense back in the law. This is the US not the Soviet Union.

 

[sdkhunter]

Yeah, it will be interesting to see if any states change how they have been handling forfeiture of vehicles, equipment, etc...

 

[JLS]

Poachers beware. Best to have a lein on your vehicle as I doubt a vehicle with a lein could be seized as easily as one you owned.

Actually it does make a difference.

 

[JLS]

When he was done he told the guy he was going to let him keep his shotgun and acted like he was doing him a favor.

He very well might have been blowing smoke out of his ass too. I really doubt civil forfeiture of a shotgun for a violation like that would stand up to the smell test.

 

[schmalts]

He very well might have been blowing smoke out of his ass too. I really doubt civil forfeiture of a shotgun for a violation like that would stand up to the smell test.

More than likely not, but I had a late brother in-law lose a gun for a minor game violation, get it back and it was so rusted it was worth 1/4 of when he had it taken away.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Poachers beware. Best to have a lein on your vehicle as I doubt a vehicle with a lein could be seized as easily as one you owned.

Nope - Gov takes the vehicle, you still owe the bank.

 

[VikingsGuy]

He very well might have been blowing smoke out of his ass too. I really doubt civil forfeiture of a shotgun for a violation like that would stand up to the smell test.

That's one of the ugly parts of it. They just seize it and, guilty or not, you have to sue to get it back in a prescribed window and then they sell it and you are SOL. Would have to be a pretty nice gun to spend many thousands on a lawyer trying to get it back, with a very low return rate. I know the "throw the book at them" appeal on the surface, but no person that actually digs into what this is and how it works can support it while still claiming to respect due process, a limited government and private property - this is a third world stickup tactic used by almost every state and local jurisdiction in America - it is simply an embarrassment.

 

[JLS]

That's one of the ugly parts of it. They just seize it and, guilty or not, you have to sue to get it back in a prescribed window and then they sell it and you are SOL. Would have to be a pretty nice gun to spend many thousands on a lawyer trying to get it back, with a very low return rate. I know the "throw the book at them" appeal on the surface, but no person that actually digs into what this is and how it works can support it while still claiming to respect due process, a limited government and private property - this is a third world stickup tactic used by almost every state and local jurisdiction in America - it is simply an embarrassment.

That might be the case where you’re from, but it’s certainly not true everywhere.

 

[NR_Hunter]

Have ya’ll ever checked out an auction from seized fire arms? They’re usually really cheap guns. Either poachers are smart and use bad guns and chalk up losses to the price of doing business, or poachers dumb enough to get caught are probably poor.

I kinda like when they put the screws to people who poach but not when it’s over small infractions. I just grew up with a lot of people who didn’t really respect game laws and got off easy and continued to poach like it was a joke afterwards so I don’t feel bad when a guy who gets caught up loses his truck.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Just for clarity's sake, I am as anti-poacher as anybody, but, poaching punishments should be (and are) bounded by the 8th amendment. There are far worse crimes than poaching, and far lesser crimes, they are all bounded by the 8th amendment. If poaching is a misdemeanor and misdemeanors have a max penalty of $10,000 (merely an example), then seizing a $50,000 vehicle is by definition excessive. Make it a felony, give them jail time, raise the penalty maxes for misdemeanors generally, there are all kinds of ways to amp up the consequences, but leaving the laws in their current state and letting a local G&F office fund their new photocopier by (entirely under their discretion with only the smallest amount of judicial oversight) taking your vehicle because you fire a gun too close to a road should not be lawful in a first world country - this is banana dictator stuff.

 

[Scott85]

Just for clarity's sake, I am as anti-poacher as anybody, but, poaching punishments should be (and are) bounded by the 8th amendment. There are far worse crimes than poaching, and far lesser crimes, they are all bounded by the 8th amendment. If poaching is a misdemeanor and misdemeanors have a max penalty of $10,000 (merely an example), then seizing a $50,000 vehicle is by definition excessive. Make it a felony, give them jail time, raise the penalty maxes for misdemeanors generally, there are all kinds of ways to amp up the consequences, but leaving the laws in their current state and letting a local G&F office fund their new photocopier by (entirely under their discretion with only the smallest amount of judicial oversight) taking your vehicle because you fire a gun too close to a road should not be lawful in a first world country - this is banana dictator stuff.

Agreed, well said.