Police Cannot Seize Property Indefinitely After an Arrest, Federal Court Rules

This is a well-intentioned but largely useless ruling because it fails to define the maximum duration for which property can be held. As such, it's up to the police as to what qualifies as indefinite. If the ruling had capped it to 14 or 30 days, that would be a useful ruling.

A hard time cap is essential because one's life too has a cap. The amount of time for which one can go without earning a livelihood also has a cap. Imagine if prison sentences didn't have a time cap.

This illustrates a common problem with our laws. They're very often vaguely defined, needlessly so, in a way that keeps attorneys and judges very rich, and the police abusive, to the detriment of the individual. In a sensible world, the laws would all be rewritten for clarity and consistency, starting with the Constitution.

I wonder if this ruling could also force the courts to start addressing unconstitutional civil forfeiture

The standard for arrest, probable cause, is far too weak to be any basis for indefinitely seizing property. A precedent ruling on this by the Supreme Court would be welcome, but it's hard to say which way it would go, given the current makeup of the court.

Interesting fact, police seizure (police stealing from people who are arrested, even if they are never prosecuted) is more than criminal theft. In other words, police steal more from people than criminals.

Step 1: seize property

Step 2: hold onto it for an indefinite period of time

Step 3: steal the property

Step 4: when the owner comes for their stuff, claim the property went missing

Step 5: wait for a lawsuit that usually doesn't come because the property isn't worth enough and nobody wants to get in a suit with cops for what's usually small claims

None of this is going to change unless you prevent cops from handling seized property.

Any time I hear the word reasonable in a law, I throw up my hands. That word is not concrete. It's the "give up on life pants" of legalese. Respect yourself and others, if you can't define proper limits then you don't know what you want or how to get it. In which case you should leave everyone else in peace.

While this is nice, it seems to only be addressing “I was arrested and the police seized my stuff”.

E.g it does nothing to stop “the police stopped me, stole my stuff, and then sent me on my way”. E.g the case where there is not even the accusation of a crime has even less restrictions than when you are accused of a crime.

The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable seizure.

Shouldn’t this have been obviously unconstitutional since like 1800?

Interest, 15 days interest-free period, if the item is damaged/expired, the principal and interest will be calculated based on the invoice amount

It would be egregious to keep property for years even if the arrest were made with charges. But, in the DC case, "the protesters did not face any charges" and their phones were kept for 14 months. That's doubly insane.

Non-news, because it will have little effect. Tell the tow companies that? And they will laugh, and tell you to get off their lawn. Any and all legal jurisdictions in the U.S. have a multitude of tow companies profiting from theft. (Seizure) Even San Francisco has TWO companies investigated by the FBI... No arrests were made.

Can’t sell it, have to hold it, storage isn’t free, so effectively if it isn’t evidence, they can’t keep it.

I wonder if you are owed interest on cash held for an extended period of time.

The fact that the police can materially gain from this is a toxic incentive. They should not have any of these ill-gotten gains.

How about charging interest and lost market gains on any property wrongly seized, and no qualified immunity for wrongful seizure either. Liability for both the department and individual as a private citizen.

Being vague is often necessary. E.g., what is cruel and usual punishment.

Civil asset forfeiture may be on its way out, but there's another absurdity being used to steal property and money without proving criminal guilt or civil liability. Suits are now being filed against the property itself as a defendant rather than the owner.

I'm not sure I'm capable of understanding such fuss. The stuff is into the united states of america. Her property. Would one hide from the government so much they worry about having siesures? One wonders the secrets those monsters keep safely hidden in there layers.

The fact that we even have to have this conversation tells you how far afield from our stated values we have drifted.

Some municipalities are just corrupt. If your cops are going to conferences to learn how they can seize property, they’re criminals. We should start treating them that way.

Duh, they have to destroy it to be indemnified.

Fifth amendment compensation doesn't happen cause the courts are corrupt. No blame no problem.

What about when there isn't an arrest?

We shouldn't need a court to make this the case...

The police have a role of serving the publics interests. Taking someone's phone and keeping it for a year is clearly substantially detrimental to that specific member of the public, and rather unlikely to be of commensurate benefit to the rest of the public.

Therefore, such activity isn't what we pay them for or expect them to do - at a minimum we should be firing any cops who do this deliberately, even if it weren't illegal.

But will they help Afro Man repair his door?

Wow, now I can surely be certain that the US is a liberal democracy where residents are safe from arbitrary abuse by government.

Most people who live in cities are very domesticated. In third world countries and also small towns in USA, where the police blatantly rob people under the color of law, people form their own small gangs and literally hunt the other gang (irrespective of costume/uniform) down and kill them.

Highway robbery is highway robbery, uniformed or not.

Good luck enforcing it.

This is not a problem at all in the EU and I can't help but wonder if the source of the problem isn't the word of the law but the fact in the US police appears to have an incentive to seize assets that is not connected to any criminal proceeding.

In the EU if something is seized that isn't relate to a case it just produces costs for the police district as it needs to be stored, processed etc. In the US the value goes directly into the koffers of the people doing the seizing. If you give your kid a cookie everything it steals, you should not be surprised it ends up being a thief.

So if you want that kind of thuggish behavior to stop, you need to remove the incentive to do so. If anything there should be a slight disincentive, so only useful assets are seized and your police avoids unnecessary cost or does not abuse their power to seize things to punish innocent people.

My general advice for looking at any issue is to first analyze the incentive structure and the environment actors operate in.

The current Supreme Court would overturn this decision in record time.

There are a lot of people saying that bitcoin is just another bubble and it will burst one day like the tulipmania bubble. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.

However, there is one thing about bitcoin that is absolutely true. It is un-seizable.