Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: A quick look at Pritzker’s new revenue streams
Posted in:
* Reuters…
In a decision that may curb the rise of financial penalties and property seizures in the U.S. criminal justice system, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time ruled that the U.S. Constitution’s ban on “excess fines” applies to states as well as the federal government.
The nine justices ruled unanimously in favor of an Indiana man named Tyson Timbs who argued that police violated his rights by seizing his $42,000 Land Rover vehicle after he was convicted as a heroin dealer.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, back on the bench for a second straight day after undergoing lung cancer surgery in December, wrote the court’s opinion, which clarified the applicability of the “excessive fines” prohibition contained in the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.
“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history. Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg said in court as she announced the ruling.
The vehicle was taken in a process called civil asset forfeiture that permits police to seize and keep property involved in a crime.
* NBC…
The Eighth Amendment’s other two restrictions, forbidding cruel and unusual punishment and banning excessive bail, were previously declared to restrict state as well as federal authority.
When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, it imposed limits only on the federal government. The Supreme Court has gradually ruled that most of its provisions also apply to the states. […]
Indiana argued that even if the ban on excessive fines applied to the states, the restriction should apply only to fines that a person has to pay, not to the seizure of property used to commit a crime.
“We disagree,” the Supreme Court said Wednesday, finding that the right is fundamental and deeply rooted in the justice system.
* Nina Totenberg at NPR…
[Ginsburg] 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.
* One more…
Thus, now the only rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights that are not incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states are: the Third Amendment prohibiting quartering of soldiers, Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment in a criminal case; and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:24 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: A quick look at Pritzker’s new revenue streams
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This ruling is 30 years late but much welcomed. Democracy is a messy thing.
Comment by Al Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:31 am
I guess our local sheriffs will have to be content with their Humvees and Armored Personnel Carriers in their local parades since the “drug dealers” Corvettes and Escalades are no longer available.
Comment by don the legend Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:35 am
Agree this is long overdue. Very happy sanity and reason are returning. Do we want freedom or do want all want to live in a police state?
Comment by Illinois Resident Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:36 am
The fact that the current Supreme Court was unanimous in this decision reveals the degree to which civil asset forfeiture violates American democratic principles. Those cats can’t come to a unanimous decision on lunch.
–Indiana argued that even if the ban on excessive fines applied to the states, the restriction should apply only to fines that a person has to pay, not to the seizure of property used to commit a crime.–
Such a paradise that Indiana, spending taxpayer dollars and putting the weight of the state behind a defense of stealing your property without due process.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:36 am
I’m wondering what the position of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police will be now regarding the legalization of marijuana.
Comment by Harvest76 Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:36 am
So DNR wont be able seize your fishing poles if you don’t have a permit ? Good news for poachers not so much for law enforment agencies.
Comment by theCardinal Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:39 am
Guessin’ chiefs stay oppose with fingers crossed the stoners get the weed and IL gets +1 million new DUI cases.
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:41 am
= So DNR wont be able seize your fishing poles if you don’t have a permit ? =
That’s not what this ruling is about. It might prevent DNR from seizing your boat, though.
Comment by cover Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:42 am
=Good news for poachers not so much for law enforment agencies.=
Maybe give the decision another read. They can.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:49 am
theCardinal - Nice straw man argument.
Comment by Illinois Resident Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:51 am
TheCardinal - years ago the Riverfront Times ran a story a friend had told me about previously, a black man had opened a deli in Clayton. My friend said he would eat there once a week and try to have a client meet him there. Sometimes, a few times a year they might have an event at the office have it catered. Anyway after two or three successful years in business this young business man leases an expensive car, a freaking Porche. He closes work late one afternoon (they were open 6 to 2:30 a breakfast lunch place) and a friendly officer pulled him over because one of his tail lights was out, no big deal. But someone have given him a cannabis cigarette and it was visibly observable (not burning or anything) and the police arrested him and forfeit the car. This young man was without wheels but responsible for the lease payment. The chief of police drive the car personally for nine months, sold it at auction and he and his drinking buddies went skiing in Aspen at Police Training and boozing school. My friend and I always thought that young businessman was robbed for being black.
Comment by Al Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:56 am
About time. I once had a judge say he did not know if marijuana was harmful but it sure as heck caused car tail lights to go out
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:00 am
“Nice straw man argument.”
I think straw men stay further away from the water…
But seriously–it’s not that they can’t take it away temporarily, it’s that they can’t *keep* it. So the hypothetical fishing rods could be taken and impounded, to be returned at some reasonable later time.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:01 am
Let’s take it the other direction. If you win a police misconduct suit, you should be able to confiscate the officer’s car and living room television.
Comment by PJ Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:01 am
There are countless stories on the injustice of civil asset forfeiture, but the article below shows how some local governments used it as a money-raising robbery racket.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:05 am
Sometimes the property wasn’t even owned by the person accused of the crime.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:06 am
The Notorious RBG. Love her.
Comment by Nick Name Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:07 am
=they can’t *keep* it. So the hypothetical fishing rods could be taken and impounded, to be returned at some reasonable later time.=
That’s not necessarily correct. This decision did NOT, contrary to what slews of commenters on various sites seem to think, bar asset forfeiture.
All it did was rule that the 8th Amendment bar to excessive fines applied to the states.
Whether a particular fine or forfeiture is “excessive” will be decided in the lower courts on a case by case basis.
Is forfeiting a fishing rod for failure to have a permit excessive? Don’t know that yet.
Comment by JoanP Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:08 am
Amen.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:22 am
Both Gorsuch and Thomas wrote concurring opinions. This particular case is about more than just money; civil asset forfeiture has been used to suppress speech.
Comment by Angry Republican Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:31 am
This is a no-brainer. Can’t believe it took this long.
I’ve been following this civil forfeiture story since I read that disturbing New Yorker article years ago and thought - How could this possibly be happening here in this country? What are we becoming and why is nothing being done about it?
So, thank you SCOTUS.
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:36 am
Wordslinger-thanks for the link. Interesting article. I had significant experience in forfeiture and saw many abuses but nothing like in the article. Interesting that it was a unanimous decision. Now the lower courts will have to deal with individual cases.
Comment by Trapped in the 'burbs Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:18 am
–Now the lower courts will have to deal with individual cases.–
The General Assembly can step up to the plate anytime now, as they could have before the Supremes ruling.
Do local governments have so much clout in Springfield that this robbery can’t be done away with by state statute?
I don’t get it. It seems to me there’s been consensus on this issue across the political spectrum for some time now.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:33 am
For those interested, this concept was incorporated into Illinois statute last year. 725 ILCS 150/9.5. This ruling changes nothing about Illinois law and Illinois statute. Frankly, I think this ruling’s importance and the impact it will supposedly have on civil asset forfeiture (at least in IL) is overstated.
Comment by Just another Anon Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:49 am
=Frankly, I think this ruling’s importance and the impact it will supposedly have on civil asset forfeiture (at least in IL) is overstated.=
Right - just don’t leave the state.
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 12:11 pm
Wonder what this will do to the LaSalle County court case against the former states attorney Townes.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 12:24 pm
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
SCOTUS was dead on target and they did not have to stretch the Constitution. The language in the 8th Amendment is clear.
The next step is to determine what is
‘excessive.’ Somebody having their car seized for having a little pot on their person is obviously ridiculous. However when it comes to larger amounts and pushing illegal drugs thee we are in different territory.
The dust has not settled on administering this complex issue.
Comment by Nonbeleiver Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 1:28 pm
don @ 9:35 am- “…our local sheriffs will have to be content with their Humvees and Armored Personnel Carriers in their local parades since the “drug dealers” Corvettes and Escalades are no longer available.” For years the county Sheriff had a red 1970s Corvette at their exhibit at the Whiteside county fairgrounds. Then a couple of years ago I ominously noticed an Army Humvee. When I asked county board members about the purpose of the Humvee, I got no intelligible answers.
Illinois residents outside of Cook county have no idea whatsoever how corrupt these rural counties are: lack of decent (or any) press coverage of county boards and township meetings, lots of elderly and uneducated people on boards that instinctively don’t like “change” or free speech, and a functioning good old boy system where they just alternate offices between the parties, making a farce of democracy. Example: “Republican” Whiteside sheriff Kelly Wilhelmi endorsed former “Democrat” opponent John Booker, former “Republican” assistant State’s Attorney Terry Costello pulls a Democratic primary ballot so he can now be appointed State’s Attorney. You have to have the feds come in and slap these corrupt good old boys the same way Attorney General Bobby Kennedy did with the Klan, it’s the only language they understand.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 2:20 pm
=Frankly, I think this ruling’s importance and the impact it will supposedly have on civil asset forfeiture (at least in IL) is overstated.=
Not as such, maybe. But now I’d like to revisit the administrative tow statute, which might in some communities constitute a roundabout way of achieving forfeiture via excessive fines.
Comment by yinn Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 2:42 pm
DOC still taking SS from drug inmates
Comment by Rabid Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 8:21 pm
Ronald Reagan dangled an illegal carrot for law enforcement to nibble
Comment by Rabid Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:52 pm
Victims be ale to sue cops for past civil rights violation full reimbursement plus interest
Comment by Rabid Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 3:23 am
When cops become criminal they lose the respect of the community
Comment by Rabid Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 3:44 am
State of illionis still have the award ceremony’ for largest asset seizures
Comment by Rabid Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 3:55 am