Can a Forfeiture Be an Excessive Fine? The Eighth Amendment and Timbs

A forfeiture can be an "excessive fine" that the Eighth Amendment forbids if it is grossly out of proportion to the crime. Fines and forfeiture are common parts of sentences in theft, fraud, and drug cases. Forfeiture means the government takes property connected to a crime. The government can seize assets it says were involved in the crime, though a court may order some assets returned, and arguing that a forfeiture is an excessive fine is one way to fight it.

Update (October 2026): This post was written while Timbs v. Indiana was pending. On February 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided the case. It held that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019). The Court did not decide whether taking Timbs's vehicle was excessive. It sent that question back to the Indiana courts.

The Eighth Amendment bars excessive fines

Excessive Fines

The Eighth Amendment says excessive fines shall not be imposed. In United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), the Supreme Court set some of the outer limits of what counts as an excessive fine in federal cases. Proportionality is the key. A fine is unconstitutional if it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense."

Forfeitures can be excessive fines

In Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the Excessive Fines Clause can apply to federal forfeitures. Forfeiture is a common tool in federal drug cases.

Applying the ban to the states

The Fourteenth Amendment makes most of the Bill of Rights apply to state and local governments. This is called "incorporation." Before Timbs, the Supreme Court had not clearly said whether the Excessive Fines Clause was incorporated.

The facts of Timbs v. Indiana

Tyson Timbs bought a Land Rover for about $42,000 with money from his father's life insurance. He used it to transport heroin across Indiana and was arrested after a sale to a confidential informant. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year of home detention and five years of probation, plus about $1,200 in fees and costs. The State then sought to forfeit the vehicle.

The trial court refused. It found that taking the vehicle would be grossly disproportionate to the offense. The maximum fine for his crime was $10,000, and the vehicle was worth more than four times that.

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Excessive Fines Clause limits only the federal government, not the states. It reasoned that the clause had never been expressly incorporated against the states, and noted that no U.S. Supreme Court case had clearly decided the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Indiana Supreme Court and held that the clause applies to the states too.

Why it matters

Many groups across the political spectrum filed briefs in Timbs. They worried about overreach by state and local governments. If those governments could seize property with no constitutional limit, they might have an incentive to focus on the crimes that bring the government the most money.

Before the decision, the original article said the outcome of Timbs would have a major impact on state forfeitures, and that anyone facing forfeiture should follow it closely. After Timbs, both federal and state forfeitures can be challenged as excessive fines, which opens the door to challenging the value of a seizure at sentencing. The argument is strongest when the value taken is far out of line with how serious the crime was. A useful starting point is to compare the value of the property with the maximum fine the law sets for the crime, as the Indiana trial court did.

Facing a federal sentence? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.