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

[T.Lex]

9 - 0!



Perhaps there is hope after all!

As I said in the other thread, Indiana: bringing consensus to the Supreme Court.

 

[Alamo]

In general I don't see anything excessive about confiscating the criminal's property directly used to facilitate a felony, be they scales, bongs, or luxury SUV. Guy clubs someone, you don't give him his baseball bat back when he gets out of prison.

I do see a problem with allowing the police agency and prosecutor's office who are handling the crime making a profit off of it. That is a huge unethical conflict of interest. Issue for another case, I guess.

 

[historian]

In general I don't see anything excessive about confiscating the criminal's property directly used to facilitate a felony, be they scales, bongs, or luxury SUV. Guy clubs someone, you don't give him his baseball bat back when he gets out of prison.

I do see a problem with allowing the police agency and prosecutor's office who are handling the crime making a profit off of it. That is a huge unethical conflict of interest. Issue for another case, I guess.

Yeah. Indiana's argument was "Because we can." Now that this is going back to the lower courts it will be interesting if they go with that it was material relevant to the crime.

 

[KLB]

In general I don't see anything excessive about confiscating the criminal's property directly used to facilitate a felony, be they scales, bongs, or luxury SUV. Guy clubs someone, you don't give him his baseball bat back when he gets out of prison.

I do see a problem with allowing the police agency and prosecutor's office who are handling the crime making a profit off of it. That is a huge unethical conflict of interest. Issue for another case, I guess.

Taking property that has more value than the maximum fine for a crime is wrong.

 

[T.Lex]

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10281901lr.pdf

After SCOTUS remanded it with some questions, the Indiana Supreme answered the questions with a framework, and is remanding it to the trial court to figure it out.

I kinda agree with Slaughter's dissent.

 

[Hohn]

Justice Slaughter, did you check under the penumbra?

Maybe found it under the "emanations" instead?

 

[HoughMade]

...I kinda agree with Slaughter's dissent.

I do as well.

 

[Alamo]

Taking property that has more value than the maximum fine for a crime is wrong.

So confiscating property that was directly used to commit a crime is wrong? Using your logic, how is it that any property is worth more than a felony conviction with a prison term of anywhere from one-year to life (or even death) punishment? Note that my comment was applied to felonies generally, not just this case. Property, like freedom, should only be confiscated after due process in court, and be a result of a convicted crime, and it definitely should not be making money for the courts, the prosecutor, nor the police.

*** Not that the whole "what's a felony" and "what's a crime" couldn't use a big overhaul.

 

[HoughMade]

Think about the absurdity- there are bales of cash that were actually used in the crime to pay for the whatever (let's make it weapons grade uranium, ivory, illegal crocodile skins- anything but drugs), and even though it was actually used in the criminal transaction, we still have to engage in a proportionality argument as to whether it can be seized.

C'mon.

 

[T.Lex]

Some of the more lucrative financial crimes come to mind, too, in which any cap on forfeiture might just be considered the risk of doing business.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If the question is ever, "should the state have more power," my answer will always be no.

 

[historian]

I'm with Slaughter as well on this. Unless SCOTUS says what excessive is, then if it is used in a crime it is liable for forfeiture. Simple and easy.

 

[HoughMade]

If the question is ever, "should the state have more power," my answer will always be no.

Then celebrate good times because nothing about this case has anything to do with giving the state more power.

 

[KLB]

Let's not pretend this has anything to do with justice or fighting crime. This is a money grab, plain and simple.

If you want to use civil forfeiture to take things proven to be acquired with ill-gotten gains, I am on board. Taking something simply because it might have been used or was used in the commission of a crime, no.

 

[T.Lex]

That seems to make sense, but that's where the fungibility of cash becomes an issue.

Hypothetically, if someone is both a drug dealer AND inherits a large sum of money, then buys a high end SUV - was that SUV "acquired" with the drug dealing money, or the inheritance?

These are not easy lines to draw.

 

[Ingomike]

I just think the whole concept of civil forfeiture is wrong. The punishment, including fines should be prescribed by law and applied equally to all defendants. If after conviction the defendant lacks resources to pay the fines then property may be seized to pay fines with balance returned to the defendant.

Under no circumstances should any government agency profit from seizing property from citizens, it is just wrong and immoral no matter what the courts have ruled on its existence...

 

[ATOMonkey]

When things are civilly forfeited, do they get returned to the "rightful" party, or does the government keep it? If the government keeps it, how is that justice?

Asking for a friend.

 

[HoughMade]

When things are civilly forfeited, do they get returned to the "rightful" party, or does the government keep it? If the government keeps it, how is that justice?

Asking for a friend.

Stolen items are returned to the owner if it is a legal item and the rightful owner can be determined....which has nothing to do with civil forfeiture.

 

[ATOMonkey]

[video=youtube;6NjLTnI9uGM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NjLTnI9uGM[/video]