Are Excessive Fines Fundamentally Unfair? (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
Revised Feb. 20, 2019 |
| Report Number |
LSB10196 |
| Report Type |
Legal Sidebar |
| Authors |
Charles Doyle |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Sept. 12, 2018 (2 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider the question of whether it is constitutionally unfair for a
state to impose an excessive fine. More precisely, it granted certiorari in Timbs v. Indiana to consider
whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which applies to the states, incorporates the
Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The standard for incorporation is whether the protection in
question “is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.” The Indiana Supreme Court believed that only
the U.S. Supreme Court may answer that question. And so, the Indiana court reversed a lower court
determination that the Excessive Fines Clause precludes the state’s confiscation of a drug dealer’s Land
Rover.
The facts are undisputed. Tyson Timbs bought a new Land Rover with the proceeds of a life insurance
policy. He drove it on interstate trips to pick up the heroin he sold. Upon discovery of his activities, the
police arrested Timbs; seized the Land Rover; charged him with controlled substance violations; and
sought to forfeit the Land Rover. After Timbs plead guilty to a drug-dealing count, the trial court
sentenced him to a year of community corrections and five years on probation. Nevertheless, the trial
court refused to order the forfeiture of the Land Rover. To do so, it concluded would be grossly
disproportionate to Timbs’ offense and consequently would violate the Excessive Fines Clause. While a
divided panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed, the Indiana Supreme Court did not. The U.S.
Supreme Court has consented to consider the issue.
