Posted on 11/28/2018 12:41:43 PM PST by Mariner
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court left little doubt Wednesday that it would rule that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help an Indiana man recover the $40,000 Land Rover police seized when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin.
A decision in favor of 37-year-old Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana, also could buttress efforts to limit the confiscation by local law enforcement of property belonging to someone suspected of a crime. Police and prosecutors often keep the proceeds.
Timbs was on hand at the high court for arguments that were largely a one-sided affair in which the main question appeared to be how broadly the state would lose.
The court has formally held that most of the Bill of Rights applies to states as well as the federal government, but it has not done so on the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines ban.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was incredulous that Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher was urging the justices to rule that states should not be held to the same standard.
“Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, general,” Gorsuch said to Fisher, using the term for holding that constitutional provisions apply to the states.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Good on Gorsuch.
All limitations of Federal power in the Constitution should apply to the states. And THAT is way too much government as it is.
A friggen Plus.
One of the worst abuses of the WoD is / (was) confiscation.
Indeed. Criminals should be punished, but this theft by law enforcement needs to end.
“theft by law enforcement needs to end”
The guy didn’t buy the car with drug proceeds and has a money trail to show how he bought it.
So Indiana has had this guy's Land Rover for SIX YEARS, and they are just getting around to a trial? Asset Forfeiture is the “mother's milk” of law enforcement today.
I saw one case where a seized Corvette had been painted up as a cop car and was being used by the agency that seized it. What's next a seized Class A motorhome turned into a "mobile command post?" And I will bet you that every f*cking "nice gun" they take from a criminal is in some cops holster.
Bump!
It’ about time... But too late to help all the old folks who have already lost their life’s savings and properties through 40-years of blatant theft by all levels of government in the U.S.
How will the Trump-hater media spin this? Will the libs be pro-forfeiture?
Good.
In this particular case,however,I have absolutely no problem with his $40K car being seized if he was,in fact,*convicted* of using it in the sale of $400 worth of heroin.The distribution of large quantities of certain drug (including heroin) is about as serious as it gets.
Noted.
You agree with the Chief Justice. Many will. And they’ll be disappointed when the ruling is handed down.
It’s not hard to make the argument the seizure was disproportionate to the crime. Too bad the crime in question here is a heroin sale.
Be interesting to see the split between the liberals and conservatives on the court. Typically the libs support Gov’t oppression of citizens by any means available.
This case is particularly relevant because it involves an admitted drug crime (albeit a miniscule amount of drugs involved). If the Court rules that the State went over the line in a case involving a criminal conviction, how is seizure of property where no crime is ever proved going to be allowed?
It creates an environment where cops go after people who have some nice stuff, but not so much money that they can pay big bucks for legal fees to get it back.
Asset forfeitures should go through the courts first and foremost. Law enforcement agencies should not be able to seize property willy nilly. This is an abuse of power regardless if the guy was selling drugs.
“In this particular case,however,I have absolutely no problem with his $40K car being seized if he was,in fact,*convicted* of using it in the sale of $400 worth of heroin.The distribution of large quantities of certain drug (including heroin) is about as serious as it gets.”
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t have a crystal ball about High Court decisions, but the court may rule that asset seizure is warranted only if the asset was obtained as the “poisoned fruit” of illegal activity. In this case, although the vehicle was used in the commission of the crime, it was initially obtained from the proceeds of a life insurance payout.
There are plenty of other punishments available under the law that don’t involve giving the police license to be thieves.
Maybe an end to asset forfeiture when no charges are made is in sight.
The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause was long ago incorporated. The Excessive Fines Clause was treated as implicitly incorporated, but the Washington Supreme Court refused to go along with that. Now the U.S. Supreme Court will make the Excessive Fines Clause's incorporation clear enough so even the Washington Supreme Court can understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.