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. The Supreme Court ruled in Timbs v.
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]
United States (1993) that the Eighth Amendment applies to federal asset forfeitures, protecting citizens from excessive fines that would include asset forfeiture. [6] In the Supreme Court's 2017 term, a petition for a case related to state-level asset forfeiture had been submitted but the Court was forced to reject it since the petitioner had ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. deputy attorney general has suspended a controversial civil asset-forfeiture program by the Drug Enforcement Administration that targeted unsuspecting airline ...
That prosecutors in the Hoosier State successfully denied people this due process is a reflection of how abusive civil forfeiture can be. Civil Forfeiture Defendants Have the Right to a Jury Trial ...
Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the authorities. In the United States, ... In 1996, the Supreme Court in Bennis v.
"You've got to be able to demonstrate some level of legitimacy" the head of the National Sheriffs' Association says of carrying large amounts of cash.
The Court's decision created a conflict with decisions in other circuits, where panels had held that pending administrative and criminal proceedings are relevant considerations in determining whether delays in forfeiture proceedings violate the Due Process Clause. The United States petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. [7]