Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Limiting excessive fines, Supreme Court rules against seizing a drug seller's luxury SUV

  1. #1
    #DeSantis2024 Teh One Who Knocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    5280' Above Sea Level
    Posts
    256,044
    vCash
    10966
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Thanks
    23,810
    Thanked 113,085 Times in 59,902 Posts

    Law Limiting excessive fines, Supreme Court rules against seizing a drug seller's luxury SUV

    By Pete Williams - NBC News




    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to punishments imposed by the states as well as by the federal government.

    The decision, announced in court and written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was a victory for an Indiana man, Tyson Timbs, whose expensive Land Rover sport utility vehicle was confiscated after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin to undercover police officers.

    Although the Eighth Amendment bans excessive fines, the Supreme Court had never before explicitly said that it applies to the states. The Indiana Supreme Court, ruling against Timbs, held that it did not.

    Wednesday's ruling removed any lingering doubt.

    "The protection against excessive fines guards against abuses of government's punitive or criminal law enforcement authority," Ginsburg wrote, finding that the safeguard "is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty."

    The Eighth Amendment's other two restrictions, forbidding cruel and unusual punishment and banning excessive bail, were previously declared to restrict state as well as federal authority.

    When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, it imposed limits only on the federal government. The Supreme Court has gradually ruled that most of its provisions also apply to the states.

    Timbs became addicted to an opioid prescription for persistent foot pain. When that supply ran out, he turned to drug dealers and eventually to heroin. To pay for his addiction, he began dealing heroin and was arrested after twice selling to undercover police officers.

    Because the police said he used his vehicle to facilitate the drug deals — a $42,000 Land Rover bought with money he received from his father's life insurance policy — the state instituted a forfeiture lawsuit to take it away.

    The trial judge said the punishment of losing his car would be "grossly disproportionate" to the seriousness of his offense given that the value of the Land Rover was more than four times the maximum fine for the drug conviction. But the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the ruling.

    Indiana argued that even if the ban on excessive fines applied to the states, the restriction should apply only to fines that a person has to pay, not to the seizure of property used to commit a crime.

    "We disagree," the Supreme Court said Wednesday, finding that the right is fundamental and deeply rooted in the justice system.

    Ginsburg's opinion traced the guarantee back to as early as 1215. England's Magna Carta required that financial penalties "be proportioned to the wrong." Harsh economic sanctions, she said, can undermine other fundamental rights. "Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies."

    In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas called the right to be free of excessive fines "a privilege of American citizenship."

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Teh One Who Knocks For This Useful Post:

    RBP (02-21-2019)

  3. #2
    Mr Magoo RBP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    60,390
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    185 Post(s)
    Thanks
    78,181
    Thanked 27,731 Times in 15,014 Posts
    Did they just end civil forfeiture?

    That's awesome. The police routinely seize cash or assets even if they only suspect criminal activity. Way too expensive to sue to get it back. It's bullshit. I hope this ends that practice.

    It's a little confusing though. If they find a stash of drugs and a gym bag of drug money, does that same apply?
    I wanted to be a Monk, but I never got the chants.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to RBP For This Useful Post:

    PorkChopSandwiches (02-21-2019)

  5. #3
    #DeSantis2024 Teh One Who Knocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    5280' Above Sea Level
    Posts
    256,044
    vCash
    10966
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Thanks
    23,810
    Thanked 113,085 Times in 59,902 Posts
    I would bet that if they could prove that the money was actually drug money, that could be seized. But if those drugs and sack of money were found in the trunk of your Porsche, they would no longer be able to take your car from you, just the drugs and the drug money.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Teh One Who Knocks For This Useful Post:

    RBP (02-21-2019)

  7. #4
    Mr Magoo RBP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    60,390
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    185 Post(s)
    Thanks
    78,181
    Thanked 27,731 Times in 15,014 Posts
    I wanted to be a Monk, but I never got the chants.

  8. #5
    Hal killed Tormund! Pony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    17,294
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Thanks
    7,292
    Thanked 7,740 Times in 4,205 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Teh One Who Knocks View Post
    I would bet that if they could prove that the money was actually drug money, that could be seized. But if those drugs and sack of money were found in the trunk of your Porsche, they would no longer be able to take your car from you, just the drugs and the drug money.
    I think it should depend on if there is reasonable assumption the Porsche was bought with drug money.

  9. #6
    Mr Magoo RBP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    60,390
    vCash
    2000
    Mentioned
    185 Post(s)
    Thanks
    78,181
    Thanked 27,731 Times in 15,014 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Pony View Post
    I think it should depend on if there is reasonable assumption the Porsche was bought with drug money.
    Maybe that's the right question. I'm not sure. Because civil forfeiture does not require that standard. If the police have any concern that an individual is somehow involved in criminal activity, they can seize assets. That's fucked up.
    I wanted to be a Monk, but I never got the chants.

  10. #7
    Shelter Dweller PorkChopSandwiches's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    77,135
    vCash
    5000
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Thanks
    47,197
    Thanked 29,254 Times in 16,488 Posts
    civil forfeiture is bullshit, they size shit on suspicion and then you have to fight/pay to get it back without being proven guilty






  11. #8
    transracial Hal-9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    On the Discovery
    Posts
    92,141
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Thanks
    5,799
    Thanked 11,829 Times in 8,168 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Pony View Post
    I think it should depend on if there is reasonable assumption the Porsche was bought with drug money.
    When I was in high school a friend got popped with a fair amount of hash. He was here watching Stampede Wrestling on a Saturday afternoon and his sister called saying the cops were at their place and he needed to get home now. They ended up taking an older car he had bought, a drum set and a guitar and amp.

    He couldn't provide proof of income so they cops kept the car and drum set, but not the guitar/amp for some reason. He was convicted of trafficking and had to get a lawyer to avoid jail time. He was caught because of the daily traffic in and out of his parent's house. He sold one and two grams of hash on a typical sale, but in the house search the cops found about a pound of hash and some empty pound bags.

    When I look back on it...the cops committed the search before he got home and already had impounded his possessions. I recall his lawyer got him off the empty pound bag charges because they were speculative.

    I think shit like that would not fly today.

  12. #9
    Shelter Dweller
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Over the hill
    Posts
    3,639
    vCash
    2950
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Thanks
    2,942
    Thanked 1,278 Times in 863 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Teh One Who Knocks View Post
    I would bet that if they could prove that the money was actually drug money, that could be seized. But if those drugs and sack of money were found in the trunk of your Porsche, they would no longer be able to take your car from you, just the drugs and the drug money.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pony View Post
    I think it should depend on if there is reasonable assumption the Porsche was bought with drug money.
    Quote Originally Posted by RBP View Post
    Maybe that's the right question. I'm not sure. Because civil forfeiture does not require that standard. If the police have any concern that an individual is somehow involved in criminal activity, they can seize assets. That's fucked up.
    The drug dealers I represented who were "big-time" in stature always leased their luxury cars, so the vehicles couldn't be forfeited. As an aside, I remain astounded that the Feds have never shown much interest in putting drug dealers away for income tax evasion, ala AL Capone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •