|
Fuschia tude posted:How does something like this square with the fourth amendment? TSA can request you to identify yourself and search your bags again anywhere past security. I've only seen them do a check past security once and I've flown a fair bit. They were checking ids just before we boarded the plane so I suspect they were looking for someone just like CBP was here. I would assume that it doesn't matter if it's the TSA or CBP doing the search and checking IDs in the secure zone.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
I assume that TSA and CBP are unfettered in their ability to exchange information, unlike (I have been told by INS) INS and CBP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Sure, a defense lawyer calling a witness who stated an inconvenient fact that was harmful to the defense doesn't seem to be covered by my copy of the 6th Amendment. Neither perfectly competent defense counsel who never make mistakes nor do overs for rogue(?) witnesses are constitutionally compelled. So theoretically, if black prisoners were on average poorer than white prisoners, or less well educated, or had weaker support networks, or... nah, that could never happen, racism is over, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
What's the timeline on Gorsuch hearings to initiate MSCOTUSGA?DACK FAYDEN posted:Hmm, that's an interesting one. This report (Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (NCJ 244205)) doesn't seem to show statistics beyond race and type of crime (and date after release of recidivism) for the race tables. I do agree there is a factor other than blackness per se that is leading to this disparate performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
I meant to ask about this a while back. San Fran claims they're going to sue Trump over his threats to defund sanctuary cities because it violates states' rights. Do they have a leg to stand on here? Trump's not trying to give orders directly to the SFPD as far as I know. IIRC the feds have been able to withhold state funds over drinking age and DUI laws in order to manipulate state and local policy in the past. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-san-francisco-trump-20170131-story.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 08:49
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
There's four main Supreme Court cases on the issue. Two of the cases I don't remember the name of 1) there was a case involving New York and iirc something about waste disposal. Basically, congress can't legislate state laws or "commandeer" state legislatures. New York v us 2) a case involving the Bradley gun control bill. Federal government can't make state officials enforce federal law. Printz v US Those two are important federalism cases. As for the withholding funding, there is the 3) South Dakota v dole case. That was the federal highway funding and drinking age case. Then there is 4) the sebelius case on Obamacare. This is the "gun to the head of the state legislative" idea in action. Basically, it depends on the amount of money involved. Congress could withhold federal funding for highways because it was something like 2% of a state budget. But congress couldn't withhold medicare money because it was something like 25% of a state budget in some cases. A state could ignore a 2% funding loss, but not a 25% loss. Thus a state would be forced to comply with the federal government, the proverbial "gun to the head" scenario The ability to withhold federal funding depends on the amount. So it seems unlikely that trump / congress could withhold all federal funding. But they could possibly withhold some federal funding, as long as it is a small amount (which kind of defeats the purpose). The federal government can't make/commandeer state law (it could possible preempt it some cases) and it can't make state officials enforce state law. EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
Honestly, Congress is probably going to gently caress up California's budget without even meaning to while they're tinkering with Medicaid or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
They mean to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
The federalism cases dealt with states, which have a separate federal constitutional status as sovereigns, rather than cities (which may or may not be considered an arm of the state depending on the state and the federal constitutional issue at play). So who knows! Sue away! Become a test case!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
One issue, upon which blue states will be almost certainly getting crucified, will be new and discretionary program appropriations. The changing of any existing or outstanding commitments will meet legal challenges for sure, but any new stuff is fair game for politicking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
Any thoughts on today's holdings? Pena-Rodriguez seems like a good one, but it sucks that they punted on Grimm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
The judge recusal case, rippo v baker, might be one of the shortest opinions I've ever seen. Granted, it's per curiam, but the actual length of it is maybe a little more than a page
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Any thoughts on today's holdings? Pena-Rodriguez seems like a good one, but it sucks that they punted on Grimm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Well with the DoJ removing that order, the case didn't have much going for it, right? Not based on the questions presented: quote:2. If Auer is retained, should deference extend to an
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Not based on the questions presented: Both sides asked the court to still considerate even with the trump admin revoking it, but it's not surprising they didn't. I didn't read the 4th circuit opinion, but scotusblog says the 4th didn't really consider it outside of deference
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Both sides asked the court to still considerate even with the trump admin revoking it, but it's not surprising they didn't. I didn't read the 4th circuit opinion, but scotusblog says the 4th didn't really consider it outside of deference SCOTUSblog is right. The 4th just considered the matter to see if (a) the regulation was ambiguous (so that the agency would get deference) or (b) was plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. They decided (a) yes and (b) no, so gave Auer deference and the agency wins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
This is why you ALWAYS offer every argument you can at the lower court level and don't save poo poo for the SCOTUS. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/06/justice-thomas-sharply-criticizes-civil-forfeiture-laws/
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:This is why you ALWAYS offer every argument you can at the lower court level and don't save poo poo for the SCOTUS. Is this a "broken clock" thing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:This is why you ALWAYS offer every argument you can at the lower court level and don't save poo poo for the SCOTUS. This is beyond depressing and I can only imagine how many hundreds, if not thousands, of people get their lives ruined on a yearly basis by assholes abusing civil forfeiture laws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This is beyond depressing and I can only imagine how many hundreds, if not thousands, of people get their lives ruined on a yearly basis by assholes abusing civil forfeiture laws. Civil forfeiture seems like one of those things that needs to exist if, for example, customs enforcement is going to have any teeth. I do agree that it has gotten way out of hand in domestic cases though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Civil forfeiture seems like one of those things that needs to exist if, for example, customs enforcement is going to have any teeth. I do agree that it has gotten way out of hand in domestic cases though. It appears to be a lot like police regs in that, in practice, the forms and causes of abuse are different in every jurisdiction, with independent causes. So people seeking reform describe the overarching subject as the thing that needs removal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
It just needs to shift the burden from proving the money was not involved in illegal activity to proving the money was involved. The burden should be on the state if they want to keep the money, not on the individual to get their money back It wouldn't stop small town cops from being lovely to non whites, but it'd help while keeping what is, in theory, a reasonable program to combat crime EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It just needs to shift the burden from proving the money was not involved in illegal activity to proving the money was involved. The burden should be on the state if they want to keep the money, not on the individual to get their money back Yeah, I'd like to see the government have to bring an in rem action against the money/assets with the burden on them to establish that. I think that would solve like 99% of the issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Yeah, I'd like to see the government have to bring an in rem action against the money/assets with the burden on them to establish that. Not really. Half of all seizures (under one specific federal program that bothered to keep records) involve an amount below $8,800 at which point you're probably paying as much or more just to hire a lawyer to contest the action than the amount seized. It would certainly help with larger cases but it would be a far cry from solving 99% of issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Are we still going to get court cases along the lines of "The US vs 900 goat carcasses in a shipping container"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It just needs to shift the burden from proving the money was not involved in illegal activity to proving the money was involved. The burden should be on the state if they want to keep the money, not on the individual to get their money back My understanding is that would totally defang customs enforcement. Proving that this particular set of hundred dollar bills was part of an illegal transaction, or that these particular shark fins or diamonds were illegally sourced would be basically impossible unless they had evidence of the transaction itself, in which case they could just arrest the parties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Civil forfeiture seems like one of those things that needs to exist if, for example, customs enforcement is going to have any teeth. I do agree that it has gotten way out of hand in domestic cases though. that was Thomas' dissent: that its historical practice was limited to cases like piracy and smuggling where the criminals are out of the jurisdiction of American courts. If the police stop you on the side of the road, that's not analogous: you're right there!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Is there a specific case which started the precedent of the govt being allowed to seize assets without proving a crime?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Are we still going to get court cases along the lines of "The US vs 900 goat carcasses in a shipping container"? We'd loving better. No price too high for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We'd loving better. No price too high for that. Not an empty quote. It was nice to see a good Thomas opinion too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:My understanding is that would totally defang customs enforcement. Proving that this particular set of hundred dollar bills was part of an illegal transaction, or that these particular shark fins or diamonds were illegally sourced would be basically impossible unless they had evidence of the transaction itself, in which case they could just arrest the parties. I for one am kinda OK with the state having to positively prove a crime has occurred in order to seize private property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:My understanding is that would totally defang customs enforcement. Proving that this particular set of hundred dollar bills was part of an illegal transaction, or that these particular shark fins or diamonds were illegally sourced would be basically impossible unless they had evidence of the transaction itself, in which case they could just arrest the parties. You could have different standards for federal and state law enforcement, different standards for customs or border enforcement, presumptions involving things such as taking large amounts of cash across boarders, etc That's the fun part about laws, they mostly say whatever you want them to
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:My understanding is that would totally defang customs enforcement. Proving that this particular set of hundred dollar bills was part of an illegal transaction, or that these particular shark fins or diamonds were illegally sourced would be basically impossible unless they had evidence of the transaction itself, in which case they could just arrest the parties. I don't see the problem 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:My understanding is that would totally defang customs enforcement. Proving that this particular set of hundred dollar bills was part of an illegal transaction, or that these particular shark fins or diamonds were illegally sourced would be basically impossible unless they had evidence of the transaction itself, in which case they could just arrest the parties. Well, Thomas's comments pretty much suggest he would be cool with it for customs (and high-seas piracy!), since that seems like how they rolled with it in 1789, just not with it being applied after a stop on the street...
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:My understanding is that would totally defang customs enforcement. Proving that this particular set of hundred dollar bills was part of an illegal transaction, or that these particular shark fins or diamonds were illegally sourced would be basically impossible unless they had evidence of the transaction itself, in which case they could just arrest the parties. You say that like it's a bad thing. Customs saying "yeah these valuables are totally an illegal thing, YOINK" is still bullshit and not ok either. If you don't have evidence of a crime then tough poo poo. And gutting civil forfeiture wouldn't prevent customs from saying "no you can't bring this thing in to our country, period" which is far more important than your example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Under the tests for Katz v US, what would the reasonable expectation of privacy be for a citizen on private property not their own wherein the owner of the private property made no declaration one way or the other regarding photography. The hypo I had in mind specifically was something like a shopping mall, but was then wondering more generally. I know it is supposed to be on a case by case basis, and the three example tiers I was taught were your house, your car, and a park. And since this was undergrad, which was awhile ago, its not like a huge amount of time or depth was spent covering a lot of hypotheticals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You say that like it's a bad thing. Customs saying "yeah these valuables are totally an illegal thing, YOINK" is still bullshit and not ok either. If you don't have evidence of a crime then tough poo poo. Most of the problem with customs is when stuff isn't declared, in that case they still have cause to cease it. If Thomas strikes down civil forfeiture on due process grounds I'd be shocked if it changes anything to do with customs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Are we still going to get court cases along the lines of "The US vs 900 goat carcasses in a shipping container"? Your example is less funny than the real United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:that was Thomas' dissent: that its historical practice was limited to cases like piracy and smuggling where the criminals are out of the jurisdiction of American courts. If the police stop you on the side of the road, that's not analogous: you're right there! He's totally right though, I wrote my LL.M dissertation on Admiralty in rem actions here in the UK and they're this special snowflake action that's a direct import of French civil law for the unique circumstance of shipping, has no coherent doctrinal justification in UK law and the last time the Supreme Court were asked how it all actually works the official answer was "very well, now lets move swiftly on". We also have general civil forfeiture but the burden is on the state and it almost always follows a criminal conviction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:He's totally right though, I wrote my LL.M dissertation on Admiralty in rem actions here in the UK and they're this special snowflake action that's a direct import of French civil law for the unique circumstance of shipping, has no coherent doctrinal justification in UK law and the last time the Supreme Court were asked how it all actually works the official answer was "very well, now lets move swiftly on". In rem stuff for admiralty has been part of the American common law system since before there was a USA, so we don't have to justify it. Funny that our source (brit common law) has no valid basis itself. The thing is, it makes sense from an admiralty perspective. You have to seize poo poo when there's a problem and no one to pay for it. Arrest the ship and the cargo and let people sue to recover it so that harmed persons can actually recover damages. If they don't sell the poo poo at auction to cover the damages. It makes zero sense when pulling someone over on the side of the road to steal their vacation money. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:50
|
|
