We May Have Some Trouble in South Carolina Over Redistricting
Guess Who Else Is Launching Airstrikes Against Iran
Kevin Warsh Is One Step Closer to Becoming the Next Fed Chair
‘The View’ Is a Cancer on the Culture and the Country
There's Plenty of Gerrymandering Meandering Going on in the Press
Jack Carr’s 'The Fourth Option' and the Return of the American Gunslinger
When the Pope Isn't Right
Living in the Rearview Mirror
Democratic Socialist Morons Have Money and Momentum
Why Modern Parents Prefer Goofy Baby Names
Iran's Crumbling Dictatorship Faces Its Final Reckoning
The Fall of Virginia’s Icarus
Where's the Justice For Victims of Violent Crime?
Career Criminal Goes on Shooting Spree in Massachusetts
This Democrat Mayor Just Came Clean About Working For Communist China
Tipsheet

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Civil Forfeiture Laws With Latest Ruling

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Civil Forfeiture Laws With Latest Ruling

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made a decision that will crack down on states and localities' civil asset forfeiture, which permit them to take and keep private property used to commit crimes. 

Advertisement

Under the Eighth Amendment, the federal government is limited in their actions, specifically when it comes to "excessive fines." The Court believes those same limitations apply to the state.

About the Case

This ruling came under the Timbs v. Indiana case. The case was brought about by Tyson Timbs, who sold $225 worth of heroin to undercover police officers. He pleaded guilty to dealing of a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. According to the New York TimesTimbs was sentenced to one year of house arrest and five years of probation, and he was ordered to pay $1,200 in fees and fines.

At the time of his arrest, Timbs had a $42,000 Land Rover he bought with money he received from an insurance policy when his father died. The State of Indiana sized the Land Rover, saying it was used to transport heroin. The maximum monetary fine for a drug conviction is $10,000. 

Advertisement

Related:

SCOTUS

A trial court denied the state's request to seize the Lane Rover because the vehicle was worth more than four times the maximum monetary fine. They felt seizing the SUV would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs’s offense and unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The Court of Appeals of Indiana agreed but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the decision, saying the Eighth Amendment only applies to the feds. The Supreme Court eventually concluded that the Eighth Amendment applies to states as well. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement