The Supreme Court seems poised to apply the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause to cities and states, a move that could pave the way for an Indiana man in a legal dispute with the state to get his 2012 Land Rover back.
The justices seemed to largely agree with petitioner Tyson Timbs that the constitutional prohibition on levying excessive fines should apply to the states and cities. The prohibition does apply to fines levied by the federal government.
“Most of the incorporation cases took place in like the 1940s. And here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, general,” Justice Neil Gorsuch told Thomas Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor general who argued the case.
Incorporation refers to the application of the Bill of Rights to states and localities.
Gorsuch’s was a sentiment echoed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the newest member of the court, who suggested it may be “too late in the day to argue that any of the Bill of Rights is not incorporated.”
Wesley Hottot, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice who argued the case on behalf of Timbs, called the case “constitutional housekeeping.”
During the argument, Justice Stephen Breyer evoked images of speeding a Bugatti, Mercedes, and “even jalopy” to question whether it would be considered excessive for the state to forfeit those cars if their drivers were caught going 5 mph over the speed limit.
Fisher said the state could indeed take the vehicles.
During questioning, Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Fisher, “I don’t actually understand your argument.” When examining forfeitures, she said “many of them seem grossly disproportionate” with regard to the crimes being charged.
The question before the court in the case is whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause should be applied to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
The Eighth Amendment provides “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” While the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government when enacted, the Supreme Court has since ruled that provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states under the 14th Amendment, with the exception of a few.
The case before the court involves Timbs, a 37-year-old machinist from Marion, Ind., who had his white Land Rover taken by the state after he was arrested on his way to sell heroin to undercover police officers.
Timbs has sold the drugs to undercover officers on two previous occasions. He had purchased the Land Rover for roughly $42,000 with money he received from his father’s life insurance policy after his death in 2012.
Following his arrest, Timbs pleaded guilty to one count of dealing in a controlled substance and was sentenced to one year of home detention and five years of probation. He also had to pay court fees and a fine totaling $1,200.
The state moved to take Timbs’ vehicle using civil forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize property if they suspect it’s tied to criminal activity.
Following Timbs’ conviction, a trial court in Indiana and the Indiana Court of Appeals found that forfeiture of the Land Rover would be “grossly disproportional to the gravity” of Timbs’ offense and unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause.
The trial judge noted Timbs’ vehicle was worth roughly four times the maximum monetary fine of $10,000 the state could’ve levied against him.
The Indiana Supreme Court, however, disagreed, and reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling the U.S. Supreme Court “has never held that the states are subject to the Excessive Fines Clause.” A ruling that the states are subject to the clause would send the case back to the Indiana court and could get Timbs his car back.
During questioning of Hottot, Chief Justice John Roberts investigated what would be considered “excessive,” wondering whether $42,000 — the value of Timbs’ Land Rover — would be viewed as such in the context of a multi-millionaire.
Justice Samuel Alito also questioned Hottot about whether the Excessive Fines Clause would be applied differently if the vehicle in question were a “15-year-old Kia” or one worth $1,500.
A decision from the justices is expected by the end of June.
