Tyson Timbs looked like a typical small time drug dealer, though he made the predictable, unconvincing claim that he was busted with heroin in his Land Rover on the occasion of his very first offense. Timbs had a more credible claim that his Land Rover was purchased with money unrelated to criminal activity. He pled guilty in Marion County to dealing in a controlled substance. The Prosecutor wanted forfeiture of the Land Rover. The trial court judge found that the forfeiture of a $40,000.00 Land Rover would be “grossly disproportionate” to the gravity of Timbs’ offense (for which the maximum statutory fine was $10,000.00) and thereby contrary to the 8th Amendment “excessive fines” prohibition. Though the trial court’s holding could have been sustained under a similar prohibition found in Article 1 Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution, that argument was (wrongly) deemed waived when the case reached the Indiana Supreme Court (SCOTSI).
Here is the text of Article 1 Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution followed by the text of the more familiar 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“Section 16. Excessive Bail shall not be required. Excessive fines shall not be imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense.”
Amendment 8, “Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
After Mr. Timbs’ win in the trial court on the forfeiture issue the State took an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals (COA) and lost in a 2/1 split decision of October 20, 2016. As predicted by the CLB, the SCOTSI accepted Transfer. There followed a unanimous SCOTSI Opinion of November 2, 2017 reversing the trial court on the theory that the “excessive fines” clause of the 8th Amendment had never been “incorporated” into the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment so as to be applicable to the States. The concept of “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment is discussed in the CLB’s Appellate Case Note of the SCOTSI’s November 2, 2017 Opinion, as well as in the SCOTUS Opinion referenced below.
The SCOTUS Opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg was accompanied by two separate Opinions (Justices Gorsuch and Thomas) concurring on the central holding that the 8th Amendment “excessive fines” prohibition is applicable to the States but arguing that the “vehicle” for its incorporation is the 14th Amendment “Privileges or Immunities Clause” rather than the Due Process Clause of the same Amendment.
The result for Mr. Timbs is that his case is remanded for further proceedings “not inconsistent” with the SCOTUS ruling.
Leave a Reply