Quote of the day—Eric Boehm

Timbs is a good reminder of how ridiculous the argument in favor of civil asset forfeiture really is. During oral arguments in November, Indiana’s solicitor general got boxed into a corner by Justice Stephen Breyer, who managed to twist the government’s lawyer into arguing that Indiana should be allowed to seize vehicles for as small an offense as driving 5 mph over the speed limit, which literally elicited laughter in the courtroom.

After Wednesday’s ruling, there’s a better chance that more civil asset forfeiture cases will be laughed right out of court for being what they obviously are: unconstitutional, excessive punishments that don’t fit the crime.

Eric Boehm
February 20, 2019
Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge
[And as Tam said:

When Clarence AND Ruth are on the same side of an argument, you gotta be kind of a weirdo to be on the other side of it.

This is great news.—Joe]


4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Eric Boehm

  1. “…unconstitutional, excessive punishments that don’t fit the crime.”

    What crime? Being in possession of cash? That is the most common application of asset forfeiture. Traffic stop on your way to purchase a vehicle is very common. Or any other object, for that matter. None of their business where you are going, or why.

  2. Don’t hold your breath expecting the wholesale THEFT UNDER THE COLOR OF AUTHORITY to end. This ruling…..like virtually ALL SCOTUS rulings is carefully worded to be as focused, narrow and limited as they can make it. The court has no intentions of EVER upsetting the apple cart of Big Government power. They could have VERY EASILY stated the obvious….that seizing and keeping property of ANY KIND having ANY VALUE without an arrest, charge and a conviction is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They did not do so. Because they don’t have a problem with the practice in general…..they only found that in THIS PARTICULARE INSTANCE the badgemonkeys and DA went just a tad bit overboard.

Comments are closed.