supreme court

Supreme Court Rules Against Punitive Civil Forfeiture

supreme courtOn February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, ruling that the State of Indiana’s seizure of Timbs’ $42,000 Land Rover violated the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution as an excessive fine.[1]  This new decision is sure to have a major impact on property seizures by law enforcement agencies following criminal convictions.

Timbs had entered a guilty plea for dealing heroin and conspiracy to commit theft. He was sentenced to one year of home detention and five years of probation.  Further, Timbs was ordered to pay a total of $1,203 in fines and cost.

At the time of arrest, the police seized Timbs’ recently purchased Land Rover, which he had bought for $42,000 with the money he received from family.  The police initially seized the vehicle on the basis that it was used to transport heroin.  On the same grounds, Indiana sought a civil forfeiture ruling, which would have allowed the state to permanently keep the Land Rover.  The trial court denied the forfeiture and noted that the $42,000 vehicle was worth more than four times the maximum $10,000 fine that could have been imposed against him for his drug conviction.  The court ruled such forfeiture would be grossly disproportionate compared to Timbs’ offense and was therefore unconstitutional under the Eight Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.  Another factor that came into play was that Timbs purchased the vehicle with funds that were given to him by family, and not the proceeds from his crime.  The case eventually proceeded to the Indiana Supreme Court, which ruled that Indiana could retain the Land Rover.

The United States Supreme Court disagreed, holding that “like the Eighth Amendment’s proscriptions of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and ‘[e]xessive bail,’ the protection against excessive fines guards against abuses of government’s punitive or criminal law-enforcement authority.”  The opinion, delivered by Justice Ginsburg, noted that without the Eighth Amendment protections, excessive fines could potentially be used to retaliate against specific individuals or even suppress political speech.

For more information regarding civil forfeitures, criminal charges, or other matters, contact Sherer Law Offices at (618) 692-6656.

______________________________________________________________________________

The information provided on this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.  You should consult with an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, emails, and communications. Contacting our offices does not create an attorney-client relationship.  Please do not send any confidential information to us unless and until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

 Past results do not guarantee future results. Every case is different and is decided on its own merits. Any testimonials or endorsements regarding services do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

 The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.

[1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *