Alaska Seized a $95,000 Plane over Illicit Cargo: A Six-Pack of Beer

Civil forfeiture is something both sides agree is unconstitutional and wrong. Why has it taken so long to ban it and hold people accountable?

Because American police bomb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Alioto), riot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrolmen%27s_Benevolent_Assoc...), and doxx (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/nyregion/chiara-de-blasio...) when they don't get their way.

Because the United States has become a Police State:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

By design courts aren't held accountable by the people. Especially federal ones (aware this is a state court here, though).

SCOTUS for instance, who might hear the case, are nominated by government executives, not the people. They have zero incentive to do anything other than to garner favors from the government. That is why you walk away with insane judgements like Wickard v Filburn.

Of course, you could argue the seizure is an 8th amendment violation. Then you would take note you can go to jail for 10 years for not paying a $5 tax for any other weapon as defined by the NFA, and starting next year you can go to jail for a decade for not paying a $0 tax.

> both sides agree is unconstitutional and wrong

It's also marginally useful and we're on the upswing end of this law-and-order cycle.

Congress could place statutory limits in this behavior, it doesn't have to come from the courts.

After the police agencies in California threw such a fit that the courts made concealed carry 'shall' issue, the government threw such a fit that they wholesale published the names, addresses, and DROS details of everyone in California with a CCW, including say DV victims that might be in hiding and even hilariously judges and prosecutors [].

They tried to make it sound like a 'leak', but it was published on a polished government website that let you filter and aggregate the results.

[]https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-29/californ...

SCOTUS is currently demoting Congress from coequal branch.

For example: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-allows-trump-c...

The problem is that voters will say "I care about X" in a poll, and even while talking to family members, but they refuse to break rank when filling out a ballot.

It doesn't matter how many Republican voters say they want weed to be legal or want to end civil asset forfeiture, as long as they keep voting for people who back the blue, it doesn't matter what they want, it matters what they vote for

America's terrible political funding system and two parties mean that breaking ranks for a "small" thing like ending civil asset forfeiture would guarantee you end up getting the "other" guy, so people don't.

Then our primary system has such little engagement from the average voter that it only serves to make politicians more extreme, not more representative.

Because the state itself has massive incentive to perpetuate it.

So long as it nets the state more than it costs it will continue.

And of course, there's all sorts of useful idiots who will justify it when used in furtherance of their niche pet issues.

How much of that was the police and how much of that was the politicians? Because the politicians were pretty pissed off about that too.

>Of course, you could argue the seizure is an 8th amendment violation.

If your rights get in the way they'll just make it an administrative or civil fine like a traffic ticket or zoning violation.

If we can use the military to sweep up petty criminals and drug addicts we can do the same for a violent armed paramilitary no?

We cannot, because we voted for the people who "back the blue" no matter what.

Vote for different people if you want change.

The problem is that I care about X, but I also care about Y and Z. And there are only two candidates.

If we switched to approval voting (a checkbox next to each candidate, can check multiple candidates, whoever gets the most checks wins)...then we wouldn't need primaries and I'd be able to vote for anyone I'm "okay" with. Then my vote for X would still count.

Here in Maine we have Ranked Choice and despite the complaints of voting theory diehards, it I think is a good first step.

However, the problem is that Republicans immediately latched on that this would erode their power base, when the fairly disparate opinions of Maine conservatives and non-liberals are actually able to choose what they want.

So now changes to voting are part of the culture war. Republicans were vocally against ranked choice voting, and stonewalled it in the courts after it was passed. Their primary call to action was "One person, one vote", and no, they do not care that that doesn't make any fucking sense as an actual complaint against RCV.

This is not civil forfeiture in which property is seized without any person being convicted (or often even charged) with a crime.

This is specifically a punishment (effective fine) tied to having been convicted of certain crimes in Alaska.

Here in Nova Scotia our worst police and government excesses now seem quaint by comparison. The unhinged violence, bieng directed by police at people who pose no possible threat shown in videos every single day and The six pack confescation of someones plane which is absolute proof of racketiering and thuggery makes almost any other country in the world look better, or if not better, not worse. Realy find what is happening hard to process and wonder where it goes next. If things get realy bad, you guys(Mainers) can take the border signs for Canada and move them to your southern border, well unless Mass wants them.

Change your voting system to something other than FPTP while you still can, or suffer a similar fate one day.

Unreasonable search and seizure is prohibited by the fourth amendment and this is definitely unreasonable.

This would also seem to violate the eighth amendment as both cruel and unusual and in effect an excessive fine.

The eighth amendment prohibits all unreasonable fines so should still apply.

Also, the case and possibly the entire law should be thrown out (depending on what it says) because the crime wasn’t actually committed.

“Unreasonable” in the context of the 4th amendment means whether they have sufficient reason to execute the search and seizure, which they did here. Evidence of smuggling was in plain sight.

He is appealing to the supreme court on 8th amendment grounds of excessive fines, but the Supreme Court has thus far left it to individual states to determine whether individual fines are excessive. To which Alaska’s Supreme Court has already said “nope” in this case.

At any rate, this case is rather unrelated to why civil forfeiture should be abolished.

Because it doesn't get used against wealthy or connected people so they have no reason to care. Cops like it because they get to steal shit with zero risk, courts are ambivalent about it because its legal and courts still get money for the case regardless, politicians like it because it makes their police budget seem cheaper and it will never be used against them.

Canada is different, we are still a consitutiinal monarchy, and are unlikely to change, then there is "Kaybek" or "Qbek" which just sits there bieng french, there whole attitude to the rest of Canada can be summed up as a fiegned surprise of "oh your still here", and then there is our semi autonomous Inuit territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut and we have this very strange habit of splitting the vote and giving our governments teater totter mandates. Today is a Canadian national holliday of the sort the US is devoid of: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/nationa...