Defining what is excessive in seizures of police property remains difficult: NPR

Tyson Timbs won his Supreme Court case in February, but still does not have his Land Rover.

"I want to pick up my truck, I've always wanted to get it back," said Timbs, whose Land Rover was seized by police in Indiana. They took it after he was arrested for selling a small amount of heroin to plainclothes policemen; He served a house arrest and probation sentence for the drug crime punishments that he accepted.

But Timbs never agreed that the police would also be entitled to his $ 42,000 vehicle, which he had purchased with the proceeds of an insurance settlement.

"I thought it was ridiculous to be able to take my vehicle so easily," he says.

And yet, this kind of confiscation is common. Called "Confiscation of Civil Assets", it was developed as a policing tactic in the 1980s drug war. Authorities use the lower standard of proof of civil law to seize property – generally cars or cash – based on suspicions that they are associated with a crime. In the Timbs case, the police suspected that he had used the Land Rover to transport heroin. Since the tactic was developed, billions of dollars worth of assets have been seized this way.

Keeping the order

The technique attracts the anger of left and right activists and, on occasion, it breaks out in public view after particularly serious attacks.

One of the most visible opponents to the confiscation of civilian assets is a nonprofit organization with a libertarian bias called the Institute for Justice. He has argued for years that billions of dollars of confiscated property is a system of "keeping order for profit". They examined Timbs' case, arguing that the seizure of the truck constituted an "excessive fine", in violation of the eighth amendment of the US Constitution.

During the October debates, the judges seemed to agree that something was wrong with the confiscations.

"If we look at these confiscations that are happening today," said Judge Sonia Sotomayor, "many of them seem totally disproportionate to the crimes charged."

In February, the court ruled unanimously in favor of Timbs. But the victory was close.

What constitutes an "excessive fine?"

"This is a landmark decision because it makes it clear that states must comply with the Excessive Fines Clause" of the Bill of Rights, says Wesley Hottot, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice. But what remains undetermined is what constitutes an "excessive fine".

"I think this will result in a case-by-case development of the location of the line," said Hottot. "How much property can the government take from a person in connection with a crime?" Can they take your car? Maybe. Can they take your money? Maybe … We do not know the answers yet to these important questions. "

Lisa Soronen is Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center, which has sided with Indiana in this matter. She also thinks that the Timbs affair is only the beginning of a longer process – she says that it is a legal "skeleton".

"But there is no meat on the bones! And it will be meat when the Supreme Court has defined what is" excessive ", said Soronen. "We are not here yet."

Others think that Timbs could have a faster effect. In Georgia, a lawyer by the name of Matt Cavedon said that his position was strengthened when he had contested the moped seizure of his client by the county. The police seized him when his client was caught driving him while he was in possession of a few grams of methamphetamine.

"It was actually his main means of transport," explains Cavedon.

Cavedon was negotiating with the prosecutor for the return of the moped at the time the Timbs case had been decided. "To be able to import part of the Bill of Rights and say that it prohibited that seizure – that was very important," he says.

Hall County Attorney General Wanda Vance denies that the Timbs case made all the difference. She says that she made the moped mostly because it was just not worth it.

"I have personally spent days as a prosecutor working on this confiscation of assets," Vance said. "So, we just have to decide where we made the decision to no longer pursue the interests of justice."

Abandon the property in the state

This is an important factor. When a person challenges the confiscation of civilian property, it costs time and money, both for the prosecution and for the owner. As this is a civil case, no one has the right to free legal representation. Therefore, a challenge may cost more quickly in legal fees than the value of the property. In the case of mopeds, Cavedon took the case for free because he is a former campaigner of the Institute for Justice against the confiscation of civilian objects.

This financial barrier means that people often abandon their property to the state rather than challenging a confiscation. And, says Seattle lawyer Hottot, this slows down the process by which the courts determine what protection against "excessive fines" really means.

"It's hard for the law to evolve in ways that favor homeowners when the amount of controversy is so much lower than it costs to litigate," Hottot said. "The most socially effective remedy here is for lawmakers to solve this problem."

Some legislatures acted. New Mexico ended the confiscation of civilian assets, forcing the state to obtain a criminal conviction before claiming a property.

In Minnesota, lawmakers on both sides are demanding restrictions on what the state calls "confiscation of administrative assets" and state that their efforts have received "moral support" from the Court's unanimous decision Supreme in the Timbs case.

An indispensable tool in the fight against crime

Law enforcement agencies are concerned about the changing political climate on this issue.

"Our goal is to take a break," said Tim Leslie, Dakota County Sheriff. He says his area of ​​Minnesota is experiencing a huge surge in methamphetamine and that he needs confiscation of assets to disrupt criminal networks by seizing property, even if the culprits can not be prosecuted.

"Why are we heading to fewer tools in the toolbox?" he asks. At the same time, he recognizes the political pressure created by high-profile foreclosure cases such as Timbs.

"These scandalous examples, we have to face," he says. "But we just do not want the clock to go too far – we still want some tools for the outrageous actions we see happening" in drug trafficking networks.