<story><title>Police cannot seize property indefinitely after an arrest, federal court rules</title><url>https://reason.com/2024/08/16/police-cannot-seize-property-indefinitely-after-an-arrest-federal-court-rules/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>threatofrain</author><text>I wonder if judicial solutions can ever be adequate as police can simply say that an investigation is ongoing for years. And determining whether ongoing possession of seized property is legitimate involves disclosing investigation details.</text></item><item><author>fergbrain</author><text>I wonder if this ruling could also force the courts to start addressing unconstitutional civil forfeiture</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tshaddox</author><text>How is that different than, say, indefinite detention? It’s obviously not implemented perfectly, but habeas corpus is uncontroversial at least in principle. I don’t see anything mechanistically unique about property seizure that would make this tricky to solve.</text></comment>
<story><title>Police cannot seize property indefinitely after an arrest, federal court rules</title><url>https://reason.com/2024/08/16/police-cannot-seize-property-indefinitely-after-an-arrest-federal-court-rules/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>threatofrain</author><text>I wonder if judicial solutions can ever be adequate as police can simply say that an investigation is ongoing for years. And determining whether ongoing possession of seized property is legitimate involves disclosing investigation details.</text></item><item><author>fergbrain</author><text>I wonder if this ruling could also force the courts to start addressing unconstitutional civil forfeiture</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>zdw</author><text>There was a proposal back in the discussion of extending copyright to be &amp;quot;forever minus one day&amp;quot; by the maximalist camp which included Sonny Bono, so there are hacks around &amp;quot;indefinitely&amp;quot;.</text></comment>