Court curbs local seizures of property

Ruling: Constitution’s ban on ‘excessive fines’ also applies to states.

WASHINGTON — Siding with a small-time drug offender in Indiana whose $42,000 Land Rover was seized by law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled the Constitution places limits on civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

Civil forfeiture is a popular way to raise revenue, and its use has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum.

The Supreme Court ruled the Eighth Amendment, which bars “excessive fines,” limits the ability of the federal government to seize property. On Wednesday, the court ruled the clause also applies to the states.

Previously, the Supreme Court had never squarely addressed that question. It had addressed the status of the Excessive Fines Clause, but only in the context of the federal government.

The court had, however, previously r u led most protections under the Bill of Rights apply to the states — or were incorporated against them, in the legal jargon — under the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight jus- tices, said the question was an easy one. “The histor- ical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorpo- rates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming,” she wrote.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a con- stant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liber- ties,” she wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for exam- ple, to retaliate against or chill the speech of politi- cal enemies.

“Even absent a political motive,” she wrote, quoting from an earlier decision, “fines may be employed ‘in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retri- bution and deterrence,’ for ‘fines are a source of reve- nue,’ while other forms of punishment ‘cost a state money.’ “

Ginsburg wrote excessive fines have played a dark role in this nation’s history.

“Following the Civil War,” she wrote, “Southern States

enacted Black Codes to subjugate slaves and maintain the prewar racial hierarchy. Among these laws’ provisions were draconian fines for violating broad proscriptions on ‘vagrancy’ and other dubious offenses.”

The court left open the question of whether the seizure of the Land Rover amounted to an excessive fine, leaving its resolution to lower courts. But Gins- burg suggested the penalty was disproportionate to the offense.

The case conc e rned Tyson Timbs, who pleaded guilty to selling $225 of her- oin to undercover police officers. He 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.

State officials also seized Timbs’ vehicle, which he had bought with the proceeds of his father’s life insurance policy; author- ities said he had used it to commit crimes. Ginsburg wrote the vehicle was worth “more than four times the maximum $10,000 monetary fine assessable against him for his drug convic- tion.”

The Indiana trial judge who heard Timbs’ case ruled in his favor, saying “the amount of the forfei-

ture sought is excessive and is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.” An appeals court agreed.

But the Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Timbs, saying the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to ones imposed by states. In the next phase of the litigation, Indiana courts will decide whether the seizure of the Land Rover amounted to an excessive fine.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the result in the case, but said he would have gotten to the same place by a different route.

In a 2017 opinion, Thomas wrote “this system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.” His opinion cited reporting from The Washington Post and The New Yorker.

While the majority Wednesday relied on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, Thomas said he would have ruled “the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the 14th Amendment.”