Indiana Said the Government Should Be Able To Take Everything You Own if You Commit a Drug Crime. The State Supreme Court Wasn t Having It. Reason.com

In February of 2021, almost eight years after the state of Indiana seized Tyson Timbs’ brand-new Land Rover over a drug crime, prosecutors argued that there should be no proportionality when it comes to such offenses in other words, that the government should essentially be free to take everything you’re worth.

Today, the state’s highest court categorically rejected that.

The conclusion is not only good for Timbs who will get to keep his vehicle, once and for all but for others who would have fallen victim to Indiana prosecutors’ extremely broad definition of what constitutes a legal and proportional civil forfeiture. The practice allows the government to take your property and pocket it, sometimes if you’re only suspected of committing a crime. In Indiana, prosecutors must merely meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which requires less than evidence than is needed to get a criminal conviction.

After unsuccessfully making his way through the state courts, Timbs’ case was the subject of a 2019 landmark Supreme Court ruling, which dictated that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines and fees applies to state governments. His case then returned to Indiana’s high court, whose judges sent it back to the trial court and back up again.

In other words, this was the third time the Indiana Supreme Court was tasked with deciding who owned Tyson Timbs’ car: Timbs, or the state.

Timbs and those who might find themselves in a similar position finally won.

via reason.com