7-Year Civil Forfeiture Battle

Introduction

In Indiana, civil forfeiture is a legal mechanism by which the state can seize private property from citizens when that property is involved in alleged illegal activity. This legal concept is open to interpretation, which results in a complex application that can result in problematic outcomes. For example, it is difficult to ascertain the causal nexus between the illegal activity and the property. Does a car need to be paid for with illegal funds for it to be subject to civil forfeiture? Or does a car only need to be used for transportation during illegal activity for it to be subject to civil forfeiture? Questions like these often arise during civil asset forfeiture cases, like that faced by Tyson Timbs.

Procedural History and Outcome of State v. Timbs

Tyson Timbs fought a 7-year legal battle involving civil forfeiture that resulted in the loss his Land Rover. See State v. Timbs, 169 N.E.3d 361 (Ind. 2021). Timbs was using his Land Rover, which he purchased for $42,000, to deal heroin in Indiana. Timbs pleaded guilty to one charge of felony dealing and one charge of conspiracy to commit theft. In addition to Timbs’ prison sentence, fees, and costs, the state sought forfeiture of Timbs’ Land Rover.

The trial court denied the state’s action to forfeit Timbs’ Land Rover stating that it would be an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.[1] Forfeiture in this case would be disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense because the maximum statutory fine for the offense was $10,000 and Timbs’ Land Rover was worth roughly $42,000. If the state forfeited Timbs’ vehicle, the fine would be four times greater than the statutory maximum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision based on disproportionality. However, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the United States Supreme Court never clearly incorporated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment against the states.[2] Additionally, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled the State had proven it was entitled to forfeit the Land Rover under Indiana law.[3]

Timbs petitioned the United States Supreme Court on the question of whether the Excessive Fines Clause was incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.[4] The United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause applies to the states. Once the case was remanded to the state level, the Indiana Supreme Court held that state’s civil forfeiture law is subject to the Eighth Amendment protections against excessive fines. Chief Justice Loretta Rush stated in the decision that, to stay within the limits of the excessive fines clause, the forfeiture of Timbs’s vehicle must satisfy two legal prongs: instrumentality and proportionality. The majority ultimately held that Timbs met his burden for showing gross disproportionality, thus rendering the forfeiture of his car unconstitutional.

Other issues with Civil Forfeiture remain after State v. Timbs

While Timbs’s case addressed the unconstitutional nature of civil forfeiture, this only highlights one of many issues with civil forfeiture. The Indiana Supreme Court was careful to ensure that the door would remain open on future civil forfeitures, even after Timbs’s case, by stating the case “will not upend forfeitures in Indiana.” Id. at 376. This perpetuates this practice by the state and the problems that go along with it. Civil forfeiture proceeds are reserved for the schools, not law enforcement, pursuant to the Indiana constitution. However, law enforcement and state government have retained, by some estimates, as much as 90% of forfeiture proceeds.[5]

Although the Indiana and United States Supreme Courts have recently weighed in on this issue, the practice of forfeiture continues. If you are fighting an civil asset forfeiture of your property, contact the attorneys at McNeely Law to discuss your options.

[1] https://fedsoc.org/case/timbs-v-indiana

[2] https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/timbs-v-indiana/

[3] https://fedsoc.org/case/timbs-v-indiana

[4] https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/timbs-v-indiana/

[5] https://ij.org/case/indiana-civil-forfeiture/

This McNeely Law LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion of any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.