Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In a civil forfeiture case, the asset itself is listed as the "defendant". [15] For example, one case was titled State of Texas v. One Gold Crucifix, based on a traffic stop in which a woman was pulled over, no charges were filed, but this item of jewelry was seized. [8] Another case name was United States v. $35,651.11 in U.S. Currency. [31]
The Supreme Court stated the law on the matter: under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, states ordinarily may not seize real property (real estate) before providing notice and a ...
United States 509 U.S. 602 (1993), [25] the Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does apply to civil asset forfeiture actions taken by the federal government, in the specific case, the government's seizure of the petitioner's auto body shop on the basis of one charge of drug possession for which he had served seven years in prison.
Normally both civil and criminal forfeitures require involvement by the judiciary; however, there is a variant of civil forfeiture called administrative forfeiture which is essentially a civil forfeiture which does not require involvement by the judiciary, which derives its powers from the Tariff Act of 1930, and empowers police to seize banned ...
That prosecutors in the Hoosier State successfully denied people this due process is a reflection of how abusive civil forfeiture can be.
"In civil forfeiture cases involving personal property such as cars," Kavanaugh wrote, "the (Constitution's) Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a ...
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
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments.