State v. Timbs, et al, Ind. Ct. App. Decision on Civil Forfeiture

[T.Lex]

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11211801rrp.pdf

Indiana Court of Appeals, specifically citing Justice Thomas's commentary on the denial of cert in a forfeiture case, reverses the trial court's forfeiture of $60k that was found in a not-particularly-suspicious package by an IMPD officer looking through packages.

I do not know whether the IMPD officer was looking for anything in particular, but the opinion makes it sound that it was random, right up until the time they found something "suspicious" that isn't really all that suspicious.

 

[KLB]

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11211801rrp.pdf

Indiana Court of Appeals, specifically citing Justice Thomas's commentary on the denial of cert in a forfeiture case, reverses the trial court's forfeiture of $60k that was found in a not-particularly-suspicious package by an IMPD officer looking through packages.

I do not know whether the IMPD officer was looking for anything in particular, but the opinion makes it sound that it was random, right up until the time they found something "suspicious" that isn't really all that suspicious.

Good. Sounds like he regularly sifts through packages looking for "suspicious" ones. The drug war at its finest.

 

[miguel]

Update!

Indiana Solicitor General: It's Constitutional to Seize a Car for Driving 5 MPH Over the Speed Limit - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[T.Lex]

This is my surprised face.

 

[HoughMade]

Why is it that i will take perverse pleasure when the SCOTUS applies the 8th Amendment to the states, remands the case, and then it is promptly decided that the forfeiture did not violate the 8th Amendment?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Update!

Indiana Solicitor General: It's Constitutional to Seize a Car for Driving 5 MPH Over the Speed Limit - Hit & Run : Reason.com

That's great. This law deserves mockery.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Why is it that i will take perverse pleasure when the SCOTUS applies the 8th Amendment to the states, remands the case, and then it is promptly decided that the forfeiture did not violate the 8th Amendment?

Why would you take pleasure in that? That's exactly what the lower courts are doing with the 2nd Amendment. Crap like that, regardless of which amendment in the BOR it is happening to, just pushes people closing to choosing the "cartridge box" option.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Update!

Indiana Solicitor General: It's Constitutional to Seize a Car for Driving 5 MPH Over the Speed Limit - Hit & Run : Reason.com

That is a great article! And Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher is a statist prick! I'm glad the Justices are not buying his line.

 

[T.Lex]

That is a great article! And Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher is a statist prick! I'm glad the Justices are not buying his line.

Well, I think you're at least half-right.

 

[HoughMade]

Why would you take pleasure in that? That's exactly what the lower courts are doing with the 2nd Amendment. Crap like that, regardless of which amendment in the BOR it is happening to, just pushes people closing to choosing the "cartridge box" option.

I said "perverse" pleasure.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

I said "perverse" pleasure.

Yes, I realize that. Does the perverse pleasure come from being right about knowing how it will all unfold? Or do you think that the USSC will take more notice of the lower courts ignoring them on the 8th...thus lighting a fire under them in general?

 

[T.Lex]

I think the humor would be in ultimately reaching the same result, even with a heightened scrutiny.

That happens.

 

[HoughMade]

Yes, I realize that. Does the perverse pleasure come from being right about knowing how it will all unfold? Or do you think that the USSC will take more notice of the lower courts ignoring them on the 8th...thus lighting a fire under them in general?

Ignoring them?

As i understand it, the issue is whether the 8th Amendment applies to the states. Finding that it applies is not a finding that it was violated. While it is possible that the USSC could find that the 8th Amendment applies and state directly that the trial court's original decision should reinstated, but more likely, since the Indiana Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether the forfeiture, in fact, violated the 8th Amendment, it will be remanded to the Indiana Supreme Court to consider that issue.

Pleasure? 8th Amendment applies to states- probably a good thing. Admitted felon drug dealer loses his vehicle anyway....and that fine with me.

 

[KLB]

Ignoring them?

As i understand it, the issue is whether the 8th Amendment applies to the states. Finding that it applies is not a finding that it was violated. While it is possible that the USSC could find that the 8th Amendment applies and state directly that the trial court's original decision should reinstated, but more likely, since the Indiana Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether the forfeiture, in fact, violated the 8th Amendment, it will be remanded to the Indiana Supreme Court to consider that issue.

Pleasure? 8th Amendment applies to states- probably a good thing. Admitted felon drug dealer loses his vehicle anyway....and that fine with me.

What about losing a vehicle for going 5MPH over the speed limit? Is that OK too?

I have a big problem with the government taking property from its citizens. This was not to pay a fine imposed as part of his punishment. He received punishment for his crime, and on top of that the government decided they should take his car as well. If they can prove the car was purchased from ill gotten gains, maybe. This car was purchased with money he received that had nothing to do with drug dealing. That is theft, plain and simple. Doing it under the guise of fighting crime does not change that.

 

[T.Lex]

Money is fungible. He may not have taken literally the same dollar bills to buy the SUV, but if he hadn't been dealing drugs, then he would've had to use that money for stuff like groceries and rent.

At least, that's the counterargument.

 

[HoughMade]

According to he evidence, he transported drugs a lot more times in the SUV than the incident he was convicted of, so I don’t get what relationship he maximum fine had to whether the forfeiture was “excessive”. It may have been, but one has little to do with the other.

 

[historian]

My reading of the argument was that they will incorporate the 8th. Then what will happen is that it will be remanded to SCOIN (INSC?). The court will find that it was materially relevant (as Kagen and Roberts pointed out) and that it could be forfeited as it was used in commission of a crime. The bigger argument that I'm interested in is the "Partial" forfeiture that was being tossed around with the pot grower's spouse and the family minivan. That to me makes it seem that the state could take a "non-excessive" part of the vehicle's value, but I don't know how that materially works in such a case.

 

[KLB]

Money is fungible. He may not have taken literally the same dollar bills to buy the SUV, but if he hadn't been dealing drugs, then he would've had to use that money for stuff like groceries and rent.

At least, that's the counterargument.

The counterargument is that the .gov wants it and they say they can have it. It amazes me how much the war on drugs has eroded our freedoms in this country.

Now we have the SG for Indiana telling the USSC that it would be constitutional to seize a car for speeding.

 

[historian]

Timbs won:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/...ban-on-excessive-fines-applies-to-the-states/

 

[Libertarian01]

9 - 0!



Perhaps there is hope after all!