Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Seizures allowed government to confiscate property from citizens who failed to pay taxes or customs duties. [9] The Supreme Court upheld these forfeiture statutes in situations where it was virtually impossible to get hold of guilty persons on the high seas while possible to get hold of their property. [7]
Many circuit courts have said that law enforcement can hold your property for as long as they want. D.C.’s high court decided last week that’s unconstitutional.
Confiscation (from the Latin confiscatio "to consign to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury") is a legal form of seizure by a government or other public authority. The word is also used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property as punishment or in enforcement of the law. [1]
The 3-part test established in Matthews determines whether a prejudgment remedy meets the constitutional requirements when Government seeks deprivation on its own initiative. The court must take into consideration the private interest of the party against whom the remedy is sought, the risk of erroneous deprivation as well as the probable value ...
In 1965, the United States Supreme Court overturned the seizure of a vehicle by the Government of Pennsylvania in One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania seized using illegally obtained evidence. In 1996, the Supreme Court in Bennis v. Michigan upheld the seizure of a vehicle as contraband, despite the owner's use of the innocent owner defense.
Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence . Because the case touched on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v.
In 1922, the Supreme Court held in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon that governmental regulations that went "too far" were a taking. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority of the court, stated that "[t]he general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."
An unusual in rem case heard by the Supreme Court where the named object was not the seized property but the warrant under which it was seized. Since all the government agents involved were indisputably acting within the law as it stood, the only way for the petitioner to challenge the constitutionality of the seizure was to name the search ...