Capco Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, thus limiting their ability to use fines to raise revenue. The court's decision, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was announced by her on her second day back at the court. Ginsburg missed in-person arguments at the court for the first time in her quarter century on the Supreme Court bench after undergoing surgery for lung cancer late last year. The court's opinion came in the case of Tyson Timbs, whose $42,000 Land Rover was seized by the state of Indiana after he was arrested for selling a small amount of heroin to undercover cops for $400. An Indiana trial court ruled that the fine was grossly disproportionate punishment on top of other fines and a year of house detention. The state Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines does not apply to the states. But Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court, open during a snowstorm, disagreed with the Indiana Supreme Court. "Forfeiture of the Land Rover, the court determined, would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs's offense," Ginsburg wrote. She also noted that the ban on excessive fines was added to the Bill of Rights for the purpose of protecting individual liberty. "Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties." She noted that those fines could be used to retaliate against political enemies and have been used as a source of revenue. The ruling effectively means states and local municipalities cannot use fines as a mechanism for raising revenue, something many local governments do. As for the snow, it's not unusual for the high court to be open when the rest of Washington is closed. It's sort of a tradition. The last two chief justices were raised in the snowy Midwest, and the justices seem to enjoy being the hardiest branch of government. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/696360090/supreme-court-limits-civil-asset-forfeiture-rules-excessive-fines-apply-to-state (sorry if this was posted elsewhere already) 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Good ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capco Posted February 25, 2019 Author Share Posted February 25, 2019 59 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Good ruling. Agreed. Not everyday you get a unanimous ruling. The right gets a victory on government overreach, the left gets a victory for the poor (the ones who are disproportionately affected by these fines). A rare win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 This issue is one which I had the biggest problem with former AG Jeff Sessions. He was all for it to the hilt. Glad it's a slam dunk 9-0 decision against that by The Supremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Kind of surprised this wasn't settled law already, seems like a no brainer that would have been challenged in the past. Not sure I actually agree with this particular case, though. One could argue that $400 worth of heroin is plenty enough to cause someones death, especially if laced with anything. $40k is not an excessive fine with that in mind. Want to stop heroin / meth and other hard drugs? Make the penalties harsh. After all, being a bad behavior deterrent is one of the main reasons for a legal system in the first place. Agree with the SC ruling, disagree that this case was excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 15 minutes ago, Mark80 said: Kind of surprised this wasn't settled law already, seems like a no brainer that would have been challenged in the past. Not sure I actually agree with this particular case, though. One could argue that $400 worth of heroin is plenty enough to cause someones death, especially if laced with anything. $40k is not an excessive fine with that in mind. Want to stop heroin / meth and other hard drugs? Make the penalties harsh. After all, being a bad behavior deterrent is one of the main reasons for a legal system in the first place. Agree with the SC ruling, disagree that this case was excessive. Agreed. I think it’s obvious that the law applies to the state, but I’m fine with a drug dealer losing his wheels. in our town, cops drive around in hummers and jeeps and other nice vehicles which are marked police cars with labeling that says “this vehicle was seized from a local drug dealer.” I assume they seize the women as well, but I have no evidence of that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Agreed. I think it’s obvious that the law applies to the state, but I’m fine with a drug dealer losing his wheels. in our town, cops drive around in hummers and jeeps and other nice vehicles which are marked police cars with labeling that says “this vehicle was seized from a local drug dealer.” I assume they seize the women as well, but I have no evidence of that. The notion is that fines should not be excessive such that states and municipalities aren’t perversely incentivized to overly police their citizens for the purpose of making criminality a revenue stream. With that in mind it’s difficult to make carve-outs for drug dealers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The notion is that fines should not be excessive such that states and municipalities aren’t perversely incentivized to overly police their citizens for the purpose of making criminality a revenue stream. With that in mind it’s difficult to make carve-outs for drug dealers. For sure. I think the intricacies become judging the damage done to society by a criminals actions. Drugs are a waterfall affect of negative sociatal impact that is harder to jusge, I would say. also, on that note- if local neighborhood drug peddler drives his Range Rover to the corner to sell $20 of pot or crack or whatever, wouldn’t that be a vehicle used in the commission of the crime, and be available for seizure, regardless of amount of drugs sold? Edited February 25, 2019 by whatdrought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Capco said: Agreed. Not everyday you get a unanimous ruling. The right gets a victory on government overreach, the left gets a victory for the poor (the ones who are disproportionately affected by these fines). A rare win-win. Actually, most Supreme Court rulings are unanimous. They just don't get media attention. 48 minutes ago, Mark80 said: Not sure I actually agree with this particular case, though. One could argue that $400 worth of heroin is plenty enough to cause someones death, especially if laced with anything. $40k is not an excessive fine with that in mind. Want to stop heroin / meth and other hard drugs? Make the penalties harsh. After all, being a bad behavior deterrent is one of the main reasons for a legal system in the first place. Agree with the SC ruling, disagree that this case was excessive. You can't differentiate them by the type of case. The statutory maximum fine for that level of felony was something like $4,000 or $5,000. They seized a $40,000+ vehicle, which was wildly disproportionate to the fine range for the offense. The case was about the value of the property seized vs. the maximum fines allowed to be imposed in that state. The fact that the offense was for selling drugs wasn't terribly relevant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 20 minutes ago, Koko78 said: You can't differentiate them by the type of case. The statutory maximum fine for that level of felony was something like $4,000 or $5,000. They seized a $40,000+ vehicle, which was wildly disproportionate to the fine range for the offense. The case was about the value of the property seized vs. the maximum fines allowed to be imposed in that state. The fact that the offense was for selling drugs wasn't terribly relevant. Didn't read the facts of the case to know there was that set limit. Agree completely that 10x that statutory limit is excessive. Legislature needs to raise that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 2 hours ago, whatdrought said: For sure. I think the intricacies become judging the damage done to society by a criminals actions. Drugs are a waterfall affect of negative sociatal impact that is harder to jusge, I would say. also, on that note- if local neighborhood drug peddler drives his Range Rover to the corner to sell $20 of pot or crack or whatever, wouldn’t that be a vehicle used in the commission of the crime, and be available for seizure, regardless of amount of drugs sold? I have a nice Range Rover. When we first got it, the GPS had us drive through a less than gentrified part of town to reach our destination. I was not pleased to be routed that way, but no one looked at our vehicle, let alone looked at it with intent to do harm. After relating the incident to my niece (who used to work in the DA's office), she told me it was because it is the "preferred vehicle of drug dealers". No one was gonna mess with that vehicle or the person driving it (apparently the "woman of a certain age" driving it could be the dealer, or more likely the mother of a dealer). Who knew!? It isn't like using that as a promotional tool at Land Rover: Buy a Range Rover, the Preferred Choice of Your Local Drug Dealer! will incentivize people to buy one. Anyhoooo I wanna know where you can get a RR for $40K. That would be some deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Koko78 said: Actually, most Supreme Court rulings are unanimous. They just don't get media attention. You can't differentiate them by the type of case. The statutory maximum fine for that level of felony was something like $4,000 or $5,000. They seized a $40,000+ vehicle, which was wildly disproportionate to the fine range for the offense. The case was about the value of the property seized vs. the maximum fines allowed to be imposed in that state. The fact that the offense was for selling drugs wasn't terribly relevant. I think the municipality should be permitted to seize it, sell it, then give the guy back whatever they get in excess of the maximum fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 6 hours ago, Capco said: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, thus limiting their ability to use fines to raise revenue. The court's decision, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was announced by her on her second day back at the court. Ginsburg missed in-person arguments at the court for the first time in her quarter century on the Supreme Court bench after undergoing surgery for lung cancer late last year. The court's opinion came in the case of Tyson Timbs, whose $42,000 Land Rover was seized by the state of Indiana after he was arrested for selling a small amount of heroin to undercover cops for $400. An Indiana trial court ruled that the fine was grossly disproportionate punishment on top of other fines and a year of house detention. The state Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines does not apply to the states. But Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court, open during a snowstorm, disagreed with the Indiana Supreme Court. "Forfeiture of the Land Rover, the court determined, would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs's offense," Ginsburg wrote. She also noted that the ban on excessive fines was added to the Bill of Rights for the purpose of protecting individual liberty. "Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties." She noted that those fines could be used to retaliate against political enemies and have been used as a source of revenue. The ruling effectively means states and local municipalities cannot use fines as a mechanism for raising revenue, something many local governments do. As for the snow, it's not unusual for the high court to be open when the rest of Washington is closed. It's sort of a tradition. The last two chief justices were raised in the snowy Midwest, and the justices seem to enjoy being the hardiest branch of government. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/696360090/supreme-court-limits-civil-asset-forfeiture-rules-excessive-fines-apply-to-state (sorry if this was posted elsewhere already) This has been a problem for years. Glad to see headway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I have a nice Range Rover. When we first got it, the GPS had us drive through a less than gentrified part of town to reach our destination. I was not pleased to be routed that way, but no one looked at our vehicle, let alone looked at it with intent to do harm. After relating the incident to my niece (who used to work in the DA's office), she told me it was because it is the "preferred vehicle of drug dealers". No one was gonna mess with that vehicle or the person driving it (apparently the "woman of a certain age" driving it could be the dealer, or more likely the mother of a dealer). Who knew!? It isn't like using that as a promotional tool at Land Rover: Buy a Range Rover, the Preferred Choice of Your Local Drug Dealer! will incentivize people to buy one. Anyhoooo I wanna know where you can get a RR for $40K. That would be some deal. I feel that you really need to use this development to your advantage... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts