https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/timbs-v-indiana
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf
In Timbs versus Indiana, the Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 decision that the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to the states, limiting asset forfeiture that is currently practiced in some cases.
9-0, wow! Thus is long overdue IMO.
The case involved a man whose car was seized (with a value more than 4x the maximum fine for his offense), but I think it will end up helping everyone who pays a $75 ticket and finds that they have a $200 fine that goes along with it.
^this is so far behind those kinds of tickets though. People have lost their cars, homes, life savings on trumped up, nonexistent charges. It’s horrendous this has gone on so long.
Amazing that it was ever legal to seize things from people who were never found guilty!
Folks, this is not the end of civil asset forfeiture. It basically says that the US Constitution applies to states when it comes to limiting the ability of states to ceize property (“excessive fines”). But it is a good step forward. Glad to see it was unanimous.
Yes, it’s a step in the right direction.
That is not what this case says. At all.
Here’s a basic explanation of the Timbs v. Indiana holding.
Mr. Timbs convicted of selling a small amount of heroin. (Small enough that he was not sent to prison - instead he was sentenced to a year of home detention and 5 years of probation)
He was arrested while driving an SUV he had bought for about $42K, with money he received from a life insurance policy when his dad died. (So no claim that the car was bought from drug profits).
The trial court in Indiana denied the claim for forfeiture, holding that the value of the SUV was " grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs’s offense" and thus that forfeiture would violate the 8th amendment prohibition on excessive fines.
The state appealed, and the intermediary state appellate court affirmed – but then the state supreme court in Indiana reversed, holding that the 8th Amendment excessive fines prohibition applied only to federal action, not state.
This is where it gets a little tricky. The federal bill of rights (first 10 amendments to the US Constitution), as written, does apply only to federal actions – but there’s a long line of cases throughout the 20th century that chipped away at this, holding that the protections are extended to the states via 14th amendment. (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”) This is called “incorporation”. Wikipedia explains it very well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
So one by one, over time, almost all of the provisions of the bill of rights have been held to apply to the states, including the 8th Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail. Courts have pretty much assumed that the prohibition against excessive fines was also incorporated. (8th Amendment = "[e]xcessive bail shall
not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”) But the Supreme Court had not yet expressly held this to be the case.
So in Timbs you have these facts: The trial court determined that the civil forfeiture was an excessive fine that violates the 8th amendment – but the state supreme court said that didn’t matter, the state of Indiana doesn’t have to obey the 8th Amendment. Now 9 Justices of the US Supreme Court all agree that the 8th Amendment DOES apply – and in this case as there already is a determination that the forfeiture was excessive.
An interesting technical wrinkle is that while all 9 justices agree that the 8th Amendment prohibition on excessive fines applies through the 14th amendment, but there is a little bit of a quibble as to whether this is because of the “due process” part of the 14th amendment (as the court held), or whether it would be better to put this under the “privileges and immunities” part (a rationale that Justices Gorsuch & Thomas would prefer).
Nothing about this case sets any sort of guidance or bright-line test as to whether a particular fine or forfeiture would be excessive – that is something that pretty much gets decided on a case by case basis.
Good summary, @calmom.
Calmom, some asset forfeitures occur when the owner of the asset is not convicted of any crime at all. In your opinion, would an asset forfeiture in that case be regarded as “excessive”? It seems to me that any forfeiture is excessive if the person didn’t do anything wrong.
Justice Ginsburg finds the clause applies to all state and local governments, and she cited an amicus brief filed by the Fines and Fees Justice Center that outlined how excessive fines are often targeted at certain communities, and are used to raise revenue.
A fine for an infraction is usually understandable, and hopefully proportional. Fees are sometimes imposed on top of these, and are quite often out of proportion and illogical. California gives a fine of $100 for running a traffic light, but the driver owes $490 because of extra fees. I know that the Fines and Fees Justice Center will be back to challenge excessive fines, fees, and forfeitures in all areas so yes, those Cali tickets will be affected by this ruling soon.
@“Cardinal Fang” - the civil forfeitures are still deemed punitive in nature and subject to the 8th amendment. So it would still be evaluated in relation to the underlying act or claim giving rise to the forfeiture action.
Again, what is excessive would end up being a case by case determination. If Timbs had been a high-level drug dealer – for example, if he had been caught with $100K worth of heroin in his SUV – then a court might have ruled the forfeiture reasonable.
And I have no clue where the lines are going to be drawn. California’s system of fees & assessments for traffic fines are built into the system. The question wouldn’t be whether $490 is excessive because the base fine is $100 – the question would be whether $490 is a disproportionate punishment for the offense of running a red light. Given the safety issues involved (fairly high risk of serious injury or even death to others in that situation), it’s hard for me to see that as going beyond the bounds of what the 8th amendment allows.
I think that people may not appreciate how important it was in this case that the trial court had ruled the forfeiture amount excessive. If the Indiana courts had ruled instead that the 8th Amendment does apply, but that a forfeiture of a $42K vehicle used to transfer heroin was not excessive because of all the evils associated with heroin trafficking … I don’t think that the US Supreme Court would have ever gotten involved. There is going to be a lot of deference to the judgment of the trial courts as to where to draw that constitutional line.
I keep hearing of cases where the police seize the asset without any underlying administrative action: no criminal conviction, no misdemeanor conviction, no civil action like a traffic ticket, nothing. The cops assert the asset is involved in a crime, and just take it.
So if the police just claim that a car was involved in drug crimes, can they still take it under this case?
I don’t like the ever increasing scope of Federal power that is created by the ever-increasing boundaries of vagaries like the incorporation doctrine. Nevertheless, I do think this is a necessary decision. State and local police departments are out of control with seizures.
But are the Feds any better? I always hear about DEA seizing everything they can get their hands on.
@SatchelSF - I think it would be erroneous to maintain that federal power is increased by the incorporation doctrine. More accurately, the rights of citizens vis a vis the states are enhanced and federal power is unaffected.
@sherpa - Federal courts get the jurisdiction to shape policy at the state level whenever a right guaranteed textually only at the Federal level becomes incorporated de facto into all state constitutions. Not to start a comment war (I won’t respond), but consider abortion and gay marriage as just the most incendiary of these aggrandizements of Federal power to the detriment of state discretion - in other words to the diminution of the power of state citizens to direct state policy.
Most people fail to appreciate that the Bill of Rights is not a set of positive rights, but more properly considered as a set of limitations on Federal power. A fortiori, then, the incorporation doctrine as applied devolves those limitations into the state sphere, diminishing state power and increasing Federal.
No comment ?
Well, I for one hope it ‘trickles down’ to the CA vehicle infraction fines.
I received a red light violation right before leaving on vacation. I’m sure the notice will be in the stack of mail awaiting us. Frankly, the front tires were in the intersection while yellow but legally all tires need to be in the intersection, so I got the ticket. Yes, I am expecting a fine of around $500. (Used to be you could choose traffic school and negate the fine, now you have to pay for both).
It would seem logical that this type of excessive fine is regressive and punishes the poor of our state. And, as I said, hopefully someone in Sacramento will take notice - and soon.
California law currently does not allow drivers licences to be suspended due solely to unpaid fines, and there have always been systems in place to arrange payment plans.
I agree that fines have disproportionate impact on the poor, but given the history of 8th amendment rulings on bail amounts and prison terms, I have a hard time seeing the US Supreme Court worrying about traffic fines, especially for moving violations.
Fines are intended to have a deterrent effect.
Although it can be difficult for a low income person to go to court to contest a traffic ticket, some judges will take into account the person’s income and adjust the ticket. I went to court once to throw myself on the mercy of the court for a $400 red light ticket on my bike, and witnessed a merciful judge adjust a lot of fines.