I wish to God our laws were enforced equitably.


President Pardon-My-Sheriff does not seem to agree.

Oh?

You even conceded this point when you decided to tack over to "well sure this officer was bad but civil forfeiture is good". More gaslighting! This is why you're a troll and the proper response to you is not to "show work" but to tell you to shut the **** up.

So, shut the **** up.

The unlicensed vendor is more the exception then the rule.


If you wish laws to be enforced equitably then not conducting civil forfeiture in this particular case is the way.

Advocating a policy of siezing all revenue for any infraction is profoundly stupid.

there's a supreme court case that is similar to this vendor thing btw, its US v. Bajakajian.

you can get both the forfeiture and the fine but the forfeiture cant be disproportional to the fine amount.

eta- tldr version. guy gets stopped at customs with 350k leaving country without declaring, this is against law. Government seeks to fine him 5k and seize the 350. supreme court says they can seize but only 15k because 350k for a 5k fine is grossly disproportional to the fine amount.

Is this real life? Motel 6 hotels sending guest lists to ICE.

http://thehill.com/latino/350510-mot...umented-guests

We'll leave the light on unless you're one of Them Latinos™

apparently that isnt new? i just googled it to find some other stories, and a couple come up from 2015 where motel 6 was giving the list of every guest to police every day.

Goofy, I see you made the point I came to only later, but maybe I missed it because you framed it in terms of evidentiary relevance.



Slighted, I can't read the full opinion now, but from the wiki I grabbed this quote:


it bears no articulable correlation to any injury suffered by the Government


It looks like "forfeiture" was actually a misnomer, pretextual, for something that was actually intended to be punitive.

When I struggled with drinking too much recently, it suddenly occurred to me that allowing advertising of alcohol is completely insane. Why is that a thing, why do we unleash the free market on it? It's not even like it helps smaller players compete in the market, 99% of the alcohol advertising I see is base spirits or awful mass market beer.

IDK what the legal issues are in the US, maybe it's harder to ban ads for First Amendment reasons? Here, advertising for tobacco and pharmaceuticals is completely banned, yet advertising for the most destructive drug on the planet is ubiquitous. It's really weird when you stop to think about it.

Edit: Just advertising prices is fine, I'm OK with that, I'm more talking about ads for brands.

Yes they have 1st amendment protections. There are some rules like they can only advertise after certain hours. I'm not sure how those came about. That's one reason why some don't want to make hard drugs legal because not only does it decriminalize them but it allows them to advertise them.

Plenty of upstanding oil and gas companies do the same and just pay a fine or settlement when they get caught.

That's bad but it's not the same as giving it to ICE. That's a different level of abhorrent.

Yes.

If he's taking your money right out of your wallet, he's stealing it. There's no protocol that allows for that. Even asset forfeiture.

Yeah, just to repeat myself within 3 posts, these cops have been stealing that money for quite awhile now, I'd suspect.

lol what in the **** are you talking about?

He thought "and reinvesting back into society" and then typed it AND THEN clicked "submit reply". Incredible.

ianaw doesn't understand how civil forfeiture works but that "reinvesting back into society" line is a nice touch considering the ridiculous things police departments bought with their ill-gotten gains, eg. a Margarita machine.

Buying a margarita machine creates jobs in the margarita machine industry, so there's that.

Advertising can be banned in the US. Tobacco companies cannot advertise.

It seems like it cant be a first amendment issue if you can restrict people to advertise in certain hours. Thats speech restriction already

I'm old enough to remember when cigarette ads were still a thing. IANAL, but I can't imagine there would be no constitutional issues with banning cigarette ads, but that there would be if we tried to ban beer ads.

Eh? Whats the difference?

That's what I was trying to say: there isn't a difference that I can think of. If tobacco ads can be banned so can beer ads.

I'm told some people are bad parents

maybe we should eliminate parentage



some people are bad drivers

some can't sing

I bet ~nobody actually read the black-letter law I posted from Georgia, especially those maintaining that I don't understand civil forfeiture.

Here's the federal law. Scroll down to (e) to see what is done with the property.

Yes, money that is released to law enforcement, for the purposes of enforcing the law, is money being invested into society - insofar as society is predicated upon the rule of law.


The law requires the issuance of a warrant by a judge or at least the existence of probable cause - which of course is reviewable. (b)(2)