Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The United States Supreme Court has upheld the principle of civil asset forfeiture at the federal level. [ 10 ] [ 27 ] The Court ruled in Austin v. United States (1993) that such civil forfeiture, treated as punitive actions, are subject to the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment.
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965), was a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1965. The Court ruled that civil forfeiture could not apply where the evidence used to invoke the forfeiture was obtained illegally.
Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to civil forfeiture cases. [1]
The Supreme Court refuses to tighten the rules when ... 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us. Sign in. Mail. ... “When police seize and then seek civil forfeiture of a car that was used to commit ...
United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555, is a United States Supreme Court case regarding civil forfeiture and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Background [ edit ]
United States v. Bajakajian , 524 U.S. 321 (1998), is a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense", citing the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment . [ 1 ]
Bronston v. United States: 409 U.S. 352 (1973) Literally truthful statements under oath cannot be prosecuted as perjury even if intent was to mislead questioner United States v. Dionisio: 410 U.S. 1 (1973) Compelled production of voice samples and the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. United States v. Mara aka Marasovich: 410 U.S. 19 (1973)
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the due process requirement that a state give notice to an owner before selling his property to satisfy his unpaid taxes.