Protection From Excessive Fines At The State Level
The question of Timbs v. Indiana was whether or not the clause of excessive fines in the 8th Amendment applies to the states due to the 14th Amendment's incorporation clause. It has been ruled by SCOTUS in the past that most protections in the Bill of Rights apply to the states, however, it has never ruled specifically on the 8th Amendment until this recent case. Civil asset forfeiture is a tough issue based on its arbitrariness, but in the case of Tyson Timbs, the seizure of an asset worth nearly four times the maximum penalty of his crime sounds like clear “excessive fines”. The Supreme Court ruling on the extension of this clause to the states will prove to be important in future civil asset forfeiture.
Before Tyson Timbs was arrested in Indiana for selling heroin, his father had passed away, leaving a $73,000 life insurance benefit. Timbs then used $42,000 to purchase a 2012 Land Rover. The rest is simple, as Timbs used the Land Rover as transportation for his sales, to which he sold the drug to two undercover detectives and was later arrested. The controversy here was not the criminal offense to which Tyson has plead guilty, but the fact that the state had confiscated the 2012 Land Rover worth $42,000 when the maximum fines are $10,000. This is civil asset forfeiture of about four times the maximum penalty. This being said, Timbs filed a certiorari petition with the Indiana court system to have the car returned, on the ground that its confiscation violates the 8th Amendment. On May 4, 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court filed an opposition to this petition given that the protections in the 8th Amendment do not apply to the states or at least the Supreme Court has never ruled specifically that they do. Timbs replied to Indiana’s opposition and the Supreme Court granted the certiorari and heard oral arguments on November 28, 2018. The final decision was made Wednesday, February 20, 2019.
Timbs’ petition held a strong constitutional argument for the Supreme Court outside the arbitrariness of “excessive fines”. The 8th Amendment of the Constitution states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” As long as this clause extends to the states the law should be clear. This extension should be true based on the 14th Amendment’s due process doctrine as follows, “ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In the past, the majority of protections in the Bill of Rights have been extended to the states by the Supreme Court. It should also be clear in Timb’s defense that the Land Rover was seized, not for the penalty of selling but for its high market value to provide revenue in the coffers of the state.
Regardless of the protections from the Federal Constitution, Tate Fegley has pointed out an embarrassing blunder by the Indiana court system. This fact is that the Indiana State Constitution already has an excessive fines clause with wording almost identical to the Amendment. This means that the petition should not even have been arbitrated by the Supreme Court, because regardless of the 14th Amendment, the same protection is provided in Indiana’s own constitution.
The only arguments that worked against Timbs where those from the State of Indiana before heading to the Supreme Court. Although the definition of “excessive bail” is arbitrary, Indiana ignored this defense. Their central reason for brushing off the petition is their claim that the excessive fines clause is irrelevant to the states. It is the sole fact that SCOTUS has never ruled (until now) on this issue before that gave them the power to do this.
As well predicted by many, on Wednesday, February 20, The Supreme Court ruled that the excessive fines clause does indeed extend to the states, similar to other protections in the Bill of Rights. Given the crystal clear meaning of Amendments 8 and 14, it came to a 9-0 decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion and emphasized the logical and historical case for the 14th Amendment extending to the states. The need for the excessive fines clause being incorporated to states is said to be extremely important in protecting citizens from excessive fines motivated by political enemies, special interests on the wish lists of law enforcement, or states simply in search of extra revenue. As the Supreme Court concludes, “Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming.”
After the ruling, Timbs v. Indiana can prove to be an example of the original intent of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court in protecting the individual liberties of Americans. It is also proven to be important that opinion on civil asset forfeiture be arbitrated by a court for a government that is not directly receiving revenue from the seizure, in this case, the Supreme Court rather than the Indiana Supreme Court. As seen by the timeline and first decision by the Indiana Supreme Court, a government-run court generally rules in favor of itself. It is clear that the Indiana Constitution and the 14th Amendment both protect Indiana residents from excessive fines and confiscation of property, yet the Indiana Supreme Court still rejected Timbs’ petition. However, as of Wednesday, this matter is made clear for all citizens. The only piece that still remains cloudy is the arbitrariness of “excessive”. Obviously, with a 9-0 ruling, the consensus was that four times the maximum penalty is indeed excessive, but a Supreme Court objective definition has still never been made.