Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

SCOTUS and Timbs v Indiana

CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior MemberPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
edited November 2018 in Second Amendment/Politics #1

SCOTUS is reviewing an asset forfeiture case from Indiana. This may have some teeth against asset forfeiture cases in the future. Maybe. 


From Reason.com: 

Tyson Timbs, the plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court, was arrested in 2015 after selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pleaded guilty to one count of dealing a controlled substance and one count of conspiracy to commit theft, and he was sentenced to one year of house arrest followed by five years of probation. Additionally, the state of Indiana seized his 2012 Land Rover—which he had purchased with money received from his late father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales—on the ground that it had been used to commit a crime.

At the Supreme Court, Timbs' attorneys are arguing that the seizure of the Land Rover is an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines and fees.


Justice Breyer pulled no punches with the Indiana Solicitor General. The responses by the SG are quite telling. Apparently he thinks speeding 5 MPH over the limit gives the State Constitutional authority to seize the car. 







https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/28/breyer-destroyed-civil-asset-forfeiture
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

Adam J. McCleod


«13

Replies

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    NPR aired this tonight.

    Going to be a hard sell.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    To hell with the Heroin dealer.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    While I do agree with you Gene, our rights are what makes us a just society. While only my opinion, I do not believe that they had any right to confiscate his vehicle.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    The excerpted comments from the court discussion on NPR inticated property rights in general as being in jeopardy from these laws. The constitution has very intentional safe guards for property rights as a free society hinges on them. Also the case sounded like some of the details are outside the parameters of a simple drug dealer. 

    Technology and convoluted law are eroding our basic rights daily. A close examination can't hurt.
  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 1,057 Senior Member
    The law is the law, until the law wants to use it for their benefit. 
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,732 Senior Member
    cpj said:
    IF the vehicle and or any other property was NOT proven to be gained by illegal methods, then I believe the state should go pound sand. 
    You get charged with, and serve time for, the crime you committed, period. The state has zero right to anything else.  
    I side with the drug dealer. 

    Agree 100%. He didn't even get prison time for the actual offense committed, but they think it's ok to take his assets because MAYBE they were gotten illegally!
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    Almost certainly, the dealer delivered the heroin in the vehicle that was seized.  An "implement of the crime."  I would be very surprised if this seizure wasn't upheld, as it would set a new precedence in the Constitution.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Civil asset forfeiture is nothing more than theft under color of law. Always has been, and always will be. Just like carrying too much cash causes it to be confiscated by the greedy LE that use it to buy useless toys and feather their nests with the proceeds.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    It's been law for at least a century.  I thought the purpose of Trump's appointments to SCOTUS was to mitigate activist judges who want to change interpretations of the Constitution.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    " Democrats have also been critical of civil forfeiture programs.[11] The ACLU has also been a long time opponent."

    From History of asset seizure, Wikipedia.  So you opponents have powerful allies.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Just because a majority of judges in the SCOTUS agree on something doesn't make it right, legal, or moral. Same for Congress and POTUS.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    Actually, yes it does.  Democrat.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Gene L said:
    Actually, yes it does.  Democrat.
    We're supposed to be a Republic with a constitution. Not that than has meant anything in about 160 years.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    You're a liberal, despite your tag.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 1,057 Senior Member
    Gene L said:
    You're a liberal, despite your tag.
    That’s laughable. I’d say he’s just a good ole boy with a moral compass. But you definitely come off as a boot licker for anything LE imposed, enforced or ruled.
  • 104RFAST104RFAST Senior Member Posts: 1,281 Senior Member
    Asset forecloses are kinda like gun control. Once you let the government get a foot
    in the door,excesses will follow


      
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #19
    The usual suspect has once again resorted to name calling when his argument fails or someone dares question a police policy. 

    On topic:

    This case has the potential to redefine "excessive fines" in relation to CAT. This particular guy was busted with less than $400 worth of contraband. Is seizing a $42,000 asset excessive? The judge who initially fined him 3X the dollar amount of the contraband. Then the cops fine the guy 100X. If the guy had not owned a car, this "fine" would not have been levied. 

    Where does it end? As I mentioned, the SG of Indiana says he can seize a luxury car for 5mph over. Get caught jaywalking and the cops seize your cash and Air Jordans? 

    The SCOTUS needs to define "excessive" with a percentage scale. Otherwise we end up with Heller and it's "reasonable restriction" bull  ****. 


    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,668 Senior Member
    That might be an improvement, but hardly a "solution". I don't trust courts any more than any other gov't institution - in fact, I trust them less than most.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,671 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    That might be an improvement, but hardly a "solution". I don't trust courts any more than any other gov't institution - in fact, I trust them less than most.
    The 9th Circuit exemplifies exactly what you are saying.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    Im not real familiar with these laws. It reads in this thread like due process is being denied to certain accused individuals that are having their assets confiscated. 

    Are local jurisdictions and municipalities imposing this policy without adjudication???
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,732 Senior Member
    Im not real familiar with these laws. It reads in this thread like due process is being denied to certain accused individuals that are having their assets confiscated. 

    Are local jurisdictions and municipalities imposing this policy without adjudication???

    You bet they are. Many instances of authorities seizing property just on the belief that it was ill-gotten. No proof needed and good luck fighting it.  
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    This being the case I can't fathom how imposition of punishment and fines without due process of law could be considered conservative political policy???

    I can certainly understand the desire to put ill gotten gains of the convicted to good use.

    However.

    The denial of due process of law was major motivation for the origins of American independence. Without it, we have anarchy.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    No one said property was seized without due process.  For the record, I was a cop for 33 years and know the process.  The courts are the only thing that stands between us and the evil, and their decisions, especially SCOTUS decisions, are the final word.  If you don't understand seizure, it's been in English Common Law (origins of our law) since 1600.  Instruments of the crime, fruits of the crime, and contraband can be seized.  Contraband needs no due process, but the other two instances do.  I have no use for heroin dealers.  They reap what they sow.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    By the way, I make no excuses for enforcing the laws.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,749 Senior Member
    In the specific case being argued here the asset seizure took place after conviction in a court of law as ordered by that court.

    Is this process followed in all jurisdictions in regards to seizure of property used in the commission of applicable crimes???

    Or is the scope of the question beyond reasonbly accessible information???

    Now if the SCOTUS rules that these asset seizures are unconstitutional, what then??? 
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    The seizure isn't directly related to conviction...it's a separate procedure. The procedure is against the property, not against a person. It won't be overturned by SCOTUS,  but if it is, that's law.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    I doubt you were born during the Great Depression.  Be honest.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,743 Senior Member
    Gene L said:
    I doubt you were born during the Great Depression.  Be honest.
    No, I wasn't tho' I do read actual history and know the difference between blindly following orders and taking the time to question authority when it's due.  
    I don't know what the Depression has to do with this.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement