Supreme Court decision restricts power of law enforcement to seize money and property
On Feb. 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Constitution places limits on the power of state and local governments to confiscate and keep cash, vehicles, real estate and other private property used in the commission of crimes. The court found that the Eighth and 14th Amendments limit the ability of all levels of government to seize property.
The justices found that the Eighth Amendment bars “excessive fines,” and that this applies to the states. They also found that the 14th Amendment bans federal and state governments from depriving any person of property without due process of law. This unanimous ruling will affect the practice of civil asset forfeiture by law enforcement.
The case in question, styled as Timbs v. Indiana, started with small-time drug offender Tyson Timbs pleading guilty to selling $225 worth of heroin to undercover police officers in Indiana. He was sentenced to one year of house arrest and fined $1,200 by a court. But, the court also ordered him to forfeit a Land Rover that state officials had seized, and that was valued at $42,000.
Timbs sued, arguing that the seizure of the vehicle was an excessive fine since the vehicle’s value was much more than the $10,000 maximum fine that is allowed for his conviction under Indiana state law. A trial court sided with Timbs, as did the Court of Appeals of Indiana. However, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not apply to the states. The U.S Supreme Court’s decision overturned that ruling.
Throughout its existence, the Supreme Court has ruled that most sections of the Bill of Rights apply to the state governments. However, that did not include the Eighth Amendment until last month.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the unanimous opinion of the court stating, “For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties. All 50 states have a constitutional provision prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines either directly or by requiring proportionality.”
The practice this ruling affects, known as “civil asset forfeiture” or just “civil forfeiture,” is widely used by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to confiscate and retain cash, weapons, vehicles, houses and many other forms of property. Law enforcement officials can seize these assets if they believe that they have a preponderance of evidence that the money or property was used in a crime or could be used in a crime.
Civil forfeiture is used by law enforcement as a way to fight organized crime and raise revenue. The practice has a number of beneficial results including crippling drug trafficking organizations, impeding criminal activity, returning billions of dollars to victims, and supplying local agencies with necessary funds.
“A major positive in civil asset forfeiture laws in Texas is the drugs and money coming through our borders,” said Pedro Melchor, professor of criminology. “This hurts the cartels and helps law enforcement by seizing the drug cartel’s assets. I believe this is a good practice to follow.”
On the other hand, critics point out that current civil forfeiture laws in many states incentivize law enforcement to arbitrarily seize property. The practice has become the subject of criticism throughout the media and across the political spectrum, mainly because opponents say that the system involved is easily abused.
The money and property that police obtain from these seizures can be taken and kept by law enforcement agencies regardless of whether the original owner is convicted of a crime, or even charged with one. Under most civil forfeiture laws, including the ones in Texas, all police need is probable cause to believe that the property is being used in criminal activity to take it. And in many cases, the value of the property can be greatly out of proportion with the crimes involved.
“One of the major issues with civil forfeiture laws is that they take away the property rights of individuals who have not yet been proven guilty,” said Comeka Anderson Diaz, visiting lecturer in criminology. “In criminal matters, individuals are deemed to be innocent until proven guilty, but under civil forfeiture state and local law enforcement agencies apply the civil standard, which requires only a preponderance of the evidence – a lower burden of proof for the state. The individual who has lost his or her property is often left fighting an uphill battle in order to recover the property that he or she has lost.”
The actual case at that point is not against the individual, but rather his or her property. This makes the retrieval of the property very difficult for the original owner, as property does not have the same rights under the law as a person and essentially must be proven innocent. Individuals who have not committed, or been convicted of, a crime has had to go to lengthy, expensive court battles to retrieve their property. And because the property is what is being charged, the practice has led to some unusual court case names including United States of America v. 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins.
In many states, law enforcement agencies are allowed to keep most or all of the money and profits from property that they seize. In Texas, this can be up to 70 percent depending on the judgment entered. While the total amount that state and local law enforcement agencies receive from civil asset forfeitures is not known, the Justice Department tracked them obtaining $400 million in 2018 from joint federal-state operations under the “equitable sharing” program.
The state of Texas averages approximately $25 million per year from the equitable sharing program. Furthermore, estimates for the total amount the state takes in from civil forfeiture tops $60 million.
Civil forfeiture is also active in the Houston area. In 2017, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office took in civil forfeiture funds worth approximately 5 percent of its budget, which amounts to over $4 million. Additionally, the Harris County Budget Management Department reports that the total appropriations dedicated to county law enforcement from seized asset funds for the fiscal year 2019-2020 is $21,860,160. This does not include city-run law enforcement, such as the Houston Police Department.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Timbs v. Indiana does not end the practice of civil forfeiture at the federal level or in any state. In fact, the court did not even rule whether the seizure of the Land Rover was an excessive fine but left that to the lower court to interpret its ruling. Rather, the court’s decision allows individuals in any state to argue that the seizure of their assets is excessive and disproportionate to an offense.
