Curbing seizure

Court rightly says fines protection applies to states

In 2013, an Indiana man named Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty to selling about $225 in heroin. He got house arrest, probation and $1,200 in fines and costs.

But the state also seized his $42,000 Land Rover on the grounds it was used in a criminal act—transporting the heroin.

The maximum Timbs could have been fined on the charge was $10,000. Seizing the car represented about four times that amount.

Timbs took the state to court, relying on the 8th Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines. The case eventually reached the nation’s highest court. But the question wasn’t whether the seizure was an excessive fine. It was whether 8th Amendment protections applied to states or only the federal government, as Indiana argued. Indiana lost.

On Wednesday, the court ruled unanimously that 8th Amendment protections apply to states under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment—and the Privileges and Immunities clauses of the same amendment, according to Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, who authored a separate, concurring opinion.

The court did not declare the seizure an excessive fine—the case will go back to Indiana to determine that—but strongly indicated it was.

The ruling is important because for quite some time many state and local law enforcement agencies across the country have come to rely on assets and revenue seized by civil forfeiture— sometimes only on suspicion of a crime. There has been a lot of criticism over the practice and its abuses. This newspaper has been among the critics.

Before this ruling, the excessive fines clause applied to the federal government. Now states will have more to consider before seizing assets. In our opinion, that’s the way it should be. The unanimous court sent a message: Justice does not mean plunder.