After his arrest, Tyson Timbs found himself faced with an unexpected civil asset’s forfeiture case.
How did this happen to Timbs?
Tyson Timbs sold $225 worth of heroin to an undercover officer. He accepted a plea deal for a year of house arrest, with five years of probation. However, what Timbs did not expect was the police to seize his $42,000 Land Rover. The police told Timbs that they seized his car because it was used to commit the crime.
Timbs lost his expensive vehicle to a constitutionally fishy practice known as civil asset forfeiture. At both the state and federal level, law enforcement agencies can seize property that they deem involved with criminal activity. And no, it does not matter if the person is convicted of a crime or not. This practice is used and abused by law enforcement all the time. If an individual wants their property returned, they must go to court to prove that it was not used in any crime.
Why does it happen so frequently?
Asset forfeiture is a major financial boon for law enforcement agencies across the nation. Hundreds of millions of do1lars flow from the community into the coffers of law enforcement every year from these forfeitures. As a result, police agencies use civil asset forfeiture to fill equipment “wish lists”. There are no real limits or procedural safeguards to restrict this behavior, making it easy for police to abuse it.
Taking the Civil Asset Forfeiture Case to the Supreme Court
Out of all the assets seized by police, Timbs chose to take his case to court and demand an answer for it. His case landed at the U.S. Supreme Court, which as recently as 2017 has suggested that the civil asset forfeiture system may not be constitutional. The Court’s decision on Timbs’s case did not go that far.
Instead, the Court found that the Eighth Amendment bar on excessive fines applies in this context and is specifically applicable to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The Court’s ruling opens a previously closed door. It is possible that this ruling will lead to additional cases being considered as unconstitutionally excessive. Justice Ginsburg noted that the value of the Land Rover was more than four times the maximum permissible fine for Tomb’s conviction.
It is important to recognize that this will not put an end to civil asset forfeiture. “People are still going to lose their property without being convicted of a crime, they’re still going to have their property seized,” Institute for Justice attorney Wesley Hottot told the New York Times. “The new thing is that they can now say at the end of it all, whether I’m guilty or not, I can argue that it was excessive.”
If you need help with civil asset forfeiture, call Attorney Brandon Sample
If you have had property seized through civil asset forfeiture, give us a call to find out whether you have a case to get it back. The law in this area is changing fast, so do not wait. Contact the Law Offices of Brandon Sample today.
Src: Adam Liptak and Shaila Dewan “Supreme Court Limits Police Powers to Seize Private Property,” New York Times, 2/20/19, A13, A1
