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.I hope they lose big.
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.
Unsympathetic Guys Sometimes Deserve to Win
The Supreme Court looks set to deliver a win to a heroin dealer, along with thousands of others punished by excessive fines and asset forfeiture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
When Justice Breyer cornered the attorney for Indiana into admitting that they felt they had the right to confiscate a vehicle for as minor an infraction as speeding 5 MPH over the speed limit, they were sunk.
Indiana reached too high in their greed to grab the assets of citizens and violated the 8th Amendment. The fact that this case had the most unsympathetic of plaintiffs and the State still loses decisively speaks to how vast their overreach was.
When Justice Breyer cornered the attorney for Indiana into admitting that they felt they had the right to confiscate a vehicle for as minor an infraction as speeding 5 MPH over the speed limit, they were sunk.
Maybe not. The AP was unclear on the time line, but there's this from CJ Roberts, too:
“You will lose assets you used in the crime,” Roberts said. “You can see how that makes a lot of sense.”
Either that came before the Breyer exchange, or the Breyer exchange triggered Roberts, and he couldn't hear anymore.
Eric Hines
Sorry if I was unclear. The concept of civil forfiture is (most unfortunately) NOT sunk. The idea that they could seize anything and everything they wanted regardless of cost or value without running afoul of the 8th Amendment was. Yes roberts said it might be a close call. But I strongly disagree with the premise that a tool used in the commission of a crime is forfeit to government seizure. Claiming such (especially in the case of a high value item) makes a laughingstock of the concept of private property. Especially in the face of such ridiculous claims that the seizure of a motor vehicle for a minor traffic infraction is "reasonable".
Especially in the face of such ridiculous claims that the seizure of a motor vehicle for a minor traffic infraction is "reasonable".
I have a problem with that, too. But the timeline is important; Roberts may or may not have have a problem with that, and his vote counts for more than yours or mine.
I have less of a problem with forfeiture of the tools used on conviction and adjudication of all appeals and with a number of caveats that consider the impact of the forfeiture on innocent parties and who actually gets the forfeited materials.
Eric Hines
The Eighth Amendment says "no unreasonable fines". The taking of a $40,000 vehicle for a crime that resulted in a year of house arrest and five years of probation is the poster child of "excessive". Additionally, most departments around the country are incentivized to take as much as they can, because those very departments benefit from the goods seized directly. The whole idea of "civil forfeiture" is an abomination that needs to be banned nationwide, in my opinion.
Post a Comment