SCOTUS and Timbs v Indiana
CaliFFL
Senior MemberPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
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
Adam J. McCleod
Replies
Going to be a hard sell.
Technology and convoluted law are eroding our basic rights daily. A close examination can't hurt.
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!
Adam J. McCleod
― Douglas Adams
― Douglas Adams
― Douglas Adams
in the door,excesses will follow
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 ****.
Adam J. McCleod
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
― Douglas Adams
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.
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.
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???