Supreme Court Limits Police Powers to Seize Private Property
“The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Constitution places limits on the ability of states and localities to take and keep cash, cars, houses and other private property used to commit crimes.
The practice, known as civil forfeiture, is a popular way to raise revenue and is easily abused, and it has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum. The court’s decision will open the door to new legal arguments when the value of the property seized was out of proportion to the crimes involved.
In this case, the court sided with Tyson Timbs, a small-time drug offender in Indiana who pleaded guilty to selling $225 of heroin to undercover police officers. He was sentenced to one year of house arrest and five years of probation, and was ordered to pay $1,200 in fees and fines.
State officials also seized Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he had bought with the proceeds of his father’s life insurance policy, saying he had used it to commit crimes.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment, which bars ‘excessive fines,’ limits the ability of the federal government to seize property. On Wednesday, in a 9-to-0 decision that united justices on the left and right, the court ruled that the clause also applies to the states.
The Supreme Court had already ruled that most of the protections in the Bill of Rights, which originally restricted the power of only the federal government, also applied to the states under the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight justices, said the question before the court was an easy one. ‘The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming,’ she wrote.
‘For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,’ she wrote. ‘Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.’”