Indiana, Land Rover, Mr. Tim discussed on Opening Arguments


Right. So first time offender the state recognized non nonviolent offender drug crime, no sense, sending this guy to prison. Also, he was required to pay a variety of several hundred dollars in costs and fines. Right. So he had to pay court costs. He had to pay certain fines. They totaled up to one thousand two hundred three dollars. Okay. Now under the statute in Indiana. He could have been find as much as ten thousand dollars. He was not he was fined couple hundred bucks. Like, you said it adds up to twelve hundred dollars, and then the state of Indiana initiated, civil asset forfeiture proceedings, and they said you see the Land Rover the trick doubt forty thousand dollar Land Rover was an instrument. Talent of this crime. Because he used the Land Rover to drive to Ohio to pick up the heroin. So he needs to forfeit the Land Rover. Wow. Now, you may recall, our friend, civil asset forfeiture from the Manafort proceedings, right? Like when when you use illegally laundered money to buy a condo makes total sense to say or. Yeah. All right. You got to forfeit the content. You don't get to get to keep the condo. And the connection here as you might imagine pretty tenuous. And and Mr. Tim's argued that this violated the eighth amendment's excessive fines because it was disproportionate. And specifically the value of the assets seized was four times greater than the maximum penalty. The state could have possibly extract down no hitting. Yeah. So that was his argument the the lower courts, however ruled that the eighth amendment and particularly the excessive fines provisions had not expressly been incorporated to the states. So that's it. So the soul question that this case presents on appeal is is the excessive fines provisions of the eighth amendment incorporated to the states because if it is then you're gonna have to analyze and go is this excessive fine, and that is going to spoilers that's going to break down on the courts liberal conservative. Really, you think that even absolute I would have thought this is so ridiculous. That I I mean, I know like my libertarian friends, for example is very against civil asset forfeiture. I would think that even conservatives would be against this. I based on again of anything more big government than the government coming and taking a bunch of stuff that it really shouldn't doesn't have a right to. I totally agree. I encourage you and our listeners to read the transcript at seventy plus pages and skip down to page fifty eight skip down to win because you know, in in the forties is when we get Steven briar and in fairness soda, Maya and Gorsuch get in on this. Right. It is bipartisan beating up on the Indiana solicitor general on his Inc argument, and the idea that, you know. Yeah. There's no check against for fitting a two hundred and fifty thousand dollars sports car for five miles an hour. Speeding. But when you get to the cross examination sorry when you get to the justices questioning of. Of Mr. Tim's council. You will see the skepticism from the courts right wing on the proportionality doctrine. So yeah. Is it kind of the right wing heartless? If you broke the law, then we get to take your entire life because that's essentially is that kind of thing. Well, that's okay. Let me ask you, this is this the kind of thing that is in most state constitutions anyway, or there's been a law passed and said we haven't seen this before. But it just so happens in Indiana. There isn't any sort of state level protections. So that's why it went this far to the incorporation issue. Yeah. I don't know how many states have prohibitions on excessive fines in their state constitutions. That's that's a really really good question. I will tell you that. It's about to be an academic question. Because I I would be shocked if this case does not wind up, but it's hard to it's hard to gamble on an individual outcome..

Coming up next