Support NeoGAF

[Piecake]

Justice for Kelli and Brian Kaley, the Supreme Court held Tuesday, is of the Alice in Wonderland variety: First comes the punishment—the seizure of all their assets—then the trial, and the crime last of all. “But suppose they never committed the crime?” Alice asks. “It doesn’t matter,” comes the court’s answer, “because a grand jury said so.”

Writing for a six-justice majority in Kaley v. United States, thus concluded Justice Elena Kagan that a criminal defendant indicted by a grand jury has essentially no right to challenge the forfeiture of her assets, even if the defendant needs those very assets to pay lawyers to defend her at trial. In an odd ideological lineup, the dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts and the more liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The Kaleys’ saga began more than nine years ago when Kelli, a medical device salesperson, learned that she was under investigation by federal authorities for stealing devices from hospitals. Kelli admits she took some devices and later sold them with Brian’s help, but she says the devices she took were unwanted, outdated models that the hospitals were glad to be rid of—in effect, that she couldn’t steal something that was given to her.

The reason the Kaleys are in this mess has its origins in the 1970s, when Congress started passing a series of forfeiture laws as part of the war on drugs. The logic is simple: Crime should not pay. If you made money stealing or embezzling or dealing drugs, you shouldn’t get to keep your yacht or your house. But as Sarah Stillman’s heartbreaking story in The New Yorker showed last year, the trend in these laws is to make asset forfeiture easier for the government. The civil forfeiture statutes that Stillman wrote about don’t even require a conviction for any crime. Neither does the provision of the criminal forfeiture law used in the Kaleys’ case, and they have yet to be tried, let alone convicted.

Another judge, as famously memorialized by Tom Wolfe, gave us the memorable line that a grand jury “would indict a ham sandwich.” By design, grand juries remain entirely one-sided affairs, guided by the prosecutor, who has no obligation to offer the defendant’s side of the story. The United States stands alone among common-law nations in still using them

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...preme_court_decision_lets_the_government.html

So, the government can bring charges against you, seize your assets, which leaves you penniless to actually afford decent representation and have to depend on hugely overworked public attorneys? That's a fair trial?

Fuck, the government doesnt need to limit itself to drug crimes apparently nor do they even need to cite the statute to seize your assets anymore! Not surprisingly, you end up with fucked up situations like this, Police and Prosecuters use civil-forfeiture laws to exhort and rob average citizens. And the Supreme Court just made that perfectly constitutional!

Can someone more knowledgeable about constitutional law explain to me why they, including 2 liberal judges, ruled in favor of forfeiture? It makes no sense to me, thats for sure.

 

[Angry Grimace]

There are a lot of issues which aren't necessarily liberal vs. conservative. The controversial political rulings are frequently 5-4, but many of the criminal procedure and other decisions are not.

 

[FStop7]

The Supreme Court has pretty much become a rubber stamp for the rest of government doing what it wants.

 

[syllogism]

[
Can someone more knowledgeable about constitutional law explain to me why they, including 2 liberal judges, ruled in favor of forfeiture? It makes no sense to me, thats for sure.

They didn't rule in favor of "forfeiture" (the assets are still technically yours, just frozen). The government has the right to freeze assets if there is probable cause to believe those assets will ultimately be proved forfeitable. If assets could not be frozen, the defendant could hide or transfer them to a location where they would no longer be recoverable. Again, only assets that are likely to be forfeitable upon a guilty verdict can be frozen. That is to say, assets used or gained from certain serious crimes. Even the dissent didn't challenge this view, but the fact that the defendant can not challenge that decision.

 

[GrayFoxPL]

I'd like to seize some asses.

 

[Ash_69]

Dafuck. Seems bonkers.

What if they bought an insurance policy to cover their defence? Would that also get seized as an asset. Strikes me as bizarrely unjust.

Edit- syllogism's post somewhat helps with the rationale.

 

[Stinkles]

The Supreme Court has pretty much become a rubber stamp for the rest of government doing what it wants.

Unless 5-4 adds up differently where you come from I don't agree.

However, generally authoritarian stuff seems to cross the aisle. I agree that much.

 

[Kettch]

Reminds me of that story about an elderly couple whose house was seized because their son was dealing small time marijuana on their porch.

EDIT: Here we are. Story 2.

 

[Neuromancer]

Why let criminals keep full access to their ill gotten gains so they can hide it once they know they're the subject of an investigation? And the idea of (for example) a drug trafficker using the money he got from trafficking drugs to hire the best lawyer possible to defend him doesn't sit well with me. He wouldn't have that money if he hadn't been breaking the law in the first place.

I think we can recognize there are two sides of this.

 

[kess]

And this went down earlier today:

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches

Favor:
Alito
Roberts
Thomas
Scalia
Kennedy
Breyer

Dissent:
Ginsburg
Sotomayor
Kagan

Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas voted in the majority on both these cases, and Sotomayor is the only one who voted against both.

 

[Zhengi]

They didn't rule in favor of "forfeiture" (the assets are still technically yours, just frozen). The government has the right to freeze assets if there is probable cause to believe those assets will ultimately be proved forfeitable. If assets could not be frozen, the defendant could hide or transfer them to a location where they would no longer be recoverable. Again, only assets that are likely to be forfeitable upon a guilty verdict can be frozen. That is to say, assets used or gained from certain serious crimes. Even the dissent didn't challenge this view, but the fact that the defendant can not challenge that decision.

Thanks for the explanation. This makes total sense. Of course, the article in the op likes to sensationalize such matters.

 

[Piecake]

They didn't rule in favor of "forfeiture" (the assets are still technically yours, just frozen). The government has the right to freeze assets if there is probable cause to believe those assets will ultimately be proved forfeitable. If assets could not be frozen, the defendant could hide or transfer them to a location where they would no longer be recoverable. Again, only assets that are likely to be forfeitable upon a guilty verdict can be frozen. That is to say, assets used or gained from certain serious crimes. Even the dissent didn't challenge this view, but the fact that the defendant can not challenge that decision.

Well, from the examples in the other article I linked, it seems that the government has used a quite liberal definition of what they can they deem possibly forfeitable. A judicial review seems imperative because all of the examples given in that article seem to be a gross miscarriage of justice.

Plus, I really don't understand how your assets can be seized at all when you havent even been convicted yet. That whole, innocent until proven guilty thing. Id rather let some criminals hide their assets than the government abuse civil forfeiture laws, seize assets of innocent people, and then have those people be convicted due to a shitty public attorney.

 

[reckless]

They didn't rule in favor of "forfeiture" (the assets are still technically yours, just frozen). The government has the right to freeze assets if there is probable cause to believe those assets will ultimately be proved forfeitable. If assets could not be frozen, the defendant could hide or transfer them to a location where they would no longer be recoverable. Again, only assets that are likely to be forfeitable upon a guilty verdict can be frozen. That is to say, assets used or gained from certain serious crimes. Even the dissent didn't challenge this view, but the fact that the defendant can not challenge that decision.

Lol probable cause...
Like wanting money to pay for their own agencies?
It happens a lot.

 

[syllogism]

Well, from the examples in the other article I linked, it seems that the government has used a quite liberal definition of what they can they deem possibly forfeitable. A judicial review seems imperative because all of the examples given in that article seem to be a gross miscarriage of justice.

Plus, I really don't understand how your assets can be seized at all when you havent even been convicted yet. That whole, innocent until proven guilty thing. Id rather let some criminals hide their assets than the government abuse civil forfeiture laws, seize assets of innocent people, and then have those people be convicted due to a shitty public attorney.

It's not easy to come up with common scenarios where an innocent person is in danger of having all of his assets frozen pretrial, I suppose there's a chance in a white collar crime situation and the assets are being seized due to them potentially being used to recompense victims of said crime.

 

[Piecake]

Thanks for the explanation. This makes total sense. Of course, the article in the op likes to sensationalize such matters.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman

I'd check out that article. It gives a pretty dim picture of the actual application of civil forfeiture laws, not simply their theoretical or intended use

It's not easy to come up with common scenarios where an innocent person is in danger of having all of his assets frozen pretrial, I suppose there's a chance in a white collar crime situation and the assets are being seized due to them potentially being used to recompense victims of said crime.

Why? The vast majority of people don't have a whole lot of assets to begin with and lawyers are incredibly expensive. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that civil forfeiture laws could easily hinder someone from hiring a good lawyer and force someone to use a public attorney

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I actually was at the oral arguments for this case and was pretty obvious what they were going to decide. Not surprised Kagen wrote the opinion too. She was pretty active in questioning

I don't think the title is accurate because they never really asserted the fact the government didn't have that right (It was already precedent). They were arguing more for the right to challenge the grand juries determination of probably cause. This decision seems to be that they don't have that right. The majority in the oral arguments seemed concerned that the pre-trial would for all intents and purposes be the trial and the petitioners really couldn't articulate why it wouldn't be..

There is a problem with the use if civil forfeiture laws but i don't disagree too much with their decision here.

 

[GaimeGuy]

They didn't rule in favor of "forfeiture" (the assets are still technically yours, just frozen). The government has the right to freeze assets if there is probable cause to believe those assets will ultimately be proved forfeitable. If assets could not be frozen, the defendant could hide or transfer them to a location where they would no longer be recoverable. Again, only assets that are likely to be forfeitable upon a guilty verdict can be frozen. That is to say, assets used or gained from certain serious crimes. Even the dissent didn't challenge this view, but the fact that the defendant can not challenge that decision.

THe problem is that the assets are used as a form of blackmail.

For instance, my brother was caught with marijuana in his car and $800 cash (his boss pays in cash, and he had just been paid).

He was charged with possession, the $800 was seized, and he did not file with the courts to have the $800 returned. The prosecution would have considered pursuing an intent to distribute charge had he petitioned the court to return his money.

So not only did he get the blotch on his criminal record, his insurance record, and the heavy court fines and attorneys fees, but he also lost his paycheck for no good reason, as well.

I have no problem with the government at any level seizing assets as a part of criminal proceedings, but they shouldn't be able to dangle them over your head threatening additional charges if you try to reclaim them.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

THe problem is that the assets are used as a form of blackmail.

For instance, my brother was caught with marijuana in his car and $800 cash (his boss pays in cash, and he had just been paid).

He was charged with possession, the $800 was seized, and he did not file with the courts to have the $800 returned. The prosecution would have considered pursuing an intent to distribute charge had he petitioned the court to return his money.

So not only did he get the blotch on his criminal record, his insurance record, and the heavy court fines and attorneys fees, but he also lost his paycheck for no good reason, as well.

I have no problem with the government at any level seizing assets as a part of criminal proceedings, but they shouldn't be able to dangle them over your head threatening additional charges if you try to reclaim them.

That's not what this case was about.

The petitioners were claiming they had the right to challenge the seizures the grand jury held the government had probably cause to seize.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Why let criminals keep full access to their ill gotten gains so they can hide it once they know they're the subject of an investigation? And the idea of (for example) a drug trafficker using the money he got from trafficking drugs to hire the best lawyer possible to defend him doesn't sit well with me. He wouldn't have that money if he hadn't been breaking the law in the first place.

I think we can recognize there are two sides of this.

Reminds me of that story about an elderly couple whose house was seized because their son was dealing small time marijuana on their porch.

EDIT: Here we are. Story 2.

This seems abusable as fuck.

 

[Yoda]

We're the only developed nation which uses common law which was a "grand jury". Given they are the ones who determine probable cause, which then leads to the asset seizure is the issue. The idea of freezing the assets of someone who is ALLEGED of a crime is insane on paper, but given how our system works there is no sure way around it.

 

[~Kinggi~]

Govt and police can pretty much ruin anyone they want now, without cause.

 

[Angry Grimace]

And this went down earlier today:

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches

Favor:
Alito
Roberts
Thomas
Scalia
Kennedy
Breyer

Dissent:
Ginsburg
Sotomayor
Kagan

Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas voted in the majority on both these cases, and Sotomayor is the only one who voted against both.

Basically what it says is that if your housemate agrees to a search, they can search even if you objected earlier. Its not a tremendous relaxation of the search requirements in my opinion.

As for the OP case, it makes sense to me that the government could seize your drug money when you're arrested for being a drug dealer and not let you spend it on an expensive defense firm (for the record, attorneys who do this could already be disbarred).