The constitutional principle of incorporation is when one of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights is enforced against state and local governments. This was the issue regarding the Second Amendment in McDonald v City of Chicago, and since the first such case in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) (Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause), much of the Bill of Rights has been so incorporated.
Now, the Supreme Court has taken a case considering whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated as against the states, one of the few remaining Bill of Rights protections not previously addressed. Though the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive bail was incorporated in Schilb v Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1971), and the protection against cruel and unusual punishments was incorporated in Robinson v California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Excessive Fines Clause has not, until now, been addressed.
In Timbs v. State of Indiana, the petitioners are Tyson Timbs and his 2012 Land Rover LR2. The facts encompass a common tragic story playing out across America today. In 2012, Mr. Timbs used life insurance proceeds from his father’s passing to purchase the new Land Rover. At the same time, he became addicted to opioids following a workplace injury. When he could no longer find pills on the street, he turned to heroin. He kicked it for a short time, but then began using again. When his money ran out, he began selling, unfortunately for him mostly to undercover police officers, whom he would meet while driving his Land Rover. Timbs was arrested and his Land Rover seized.
The State attempted to have the vehicle forfeited, but the trial court and Appellate Court held that seizing and forfeiting a $42,000.00 vehicle, when the maximum fine under state law for the drug crime was $10,000.00, violated Timb’s Eighth Amendment right to be free of excessive fines. However, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause does not apply to the state governments, and therefore Indiana was free to penalize criminal defendants in this manner.
Critics argue that such laws, like civil forfeiture laws in general, disproportionately affect the poor, causing them to lose their property, homes, and jobs, while they are usually the least able to defend themselves in court against such state action. They argue such actions are money-grabs, seizing property as a means of enhancing law enforcement budgets. Others defend the practice as a valid punishment and crime deterrent. The courts are split – two federal Circuits and at least fourteen state Supreme Courts have ruled the excessive fines clause applies to the states, while a minority of jurisdictions disagree. The case was reported on by NBC and will be closely watched by many, as the outcome will affect numerous lives.
The Law Firm of David G. Sigale, P.C. was founded to serve the legal needs of the Chicago metropolitan area. Mr. Sigale has counseled and represented corporate and individual clients across the United States and internationally. He believes in protecting Americans from improper attempts by the government to infringe upon their constitutional rights. His firm services clients in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall and Will Counties, and as well as reviews matters in other locations on a case-by-case basis. Contact the firm for a consultation.
