He sells heroin. He’s a machinist with a vehicle he bought from his deceased father’s insurance policy back in 2012. So, he uses the vehicle – a Land Rover – to drive around and along with whatever else he does with his life, sell heroin in Indiana where he lives.

He makes the mistake of selling smack to some undercover agents and gets busted.

He’s charged and pleads guilty to one count of dealing in a controlled substance and the court metes out the following punishment:

• 1 year of home detention
• 5 years of probation
• Payment of court fees and fines totaling $1,200

The State of Indiana then decided to invoke civil forfeiture and seize his $42,000 Land Rover in order to limit his mobility and curb any attempt at recidivism on the part of the man, who happens to be called Tyson Timbs and is in his late 30’s.

A trial court in Indiana and the state’s court of appeals found the measure “grossly disproportional to the gravity” of the Timbs’ offence of dealing heroin. But apparently the Indiana Supreme Court decided that SCOTUS had never ruled that States are subject to the Constitution’s excessive fines clause. Thereby inviting a challenge on precisely those grounds as they shuffled the case back down to the lower courts.

Indiana’s Supreme Court lost.

The US Supreme Court in an opinion written by the spry Justice Ginsburg ruled that, “Protection against excessive punitive economic sanctions secured by the clause is, to repeat, both ‘fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty’ and ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.”

Here’s what Justice Ginsburg was referring to. The Eighth Amendment, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Forfeiture by the Crown’s Officers was arguably one of the key issues that drove the 13 Colonies to rebel against George III and declare their sovereign right to live freely under their own duly chosen representative government. This cuts deep into the marrow of America, its history, and its Constitution. As Justice Ginsburg emphasizes, “Our scheme of ordered liberty.”

Is Jeff Sessions cheering this outcome from his recently acquired status of: they that live outside the beltway? Not likely, nope. Because, yes, dealing in heroin is a dangerous, disruptive, destructive activity that ruins lives and kills people, and not just from overdoses.

But how do we handle a guy who deals in smack and works a machinist? What does or should society do about this? How does America, in fact, order her liberty?

Heroin was a rich man’s plaything some 100 odd years ago. Then a musician’s vice some 70 to 60 years ago. Then it was the hard edge of the hippie drug scene. As well a disruptive force in inner cities. And now it’s the curse of rural, Middle America. It has moved from group to group, like a wandering predator, and while it’s having a resurgence it still affects a relatively small percentage of the population but does so in often tragic and even horrifying ways. It is an evil drug by all accounts. And yes, prohibition claimed the same sinfulness on the part of alcohol but treating heroin like a good bourbon or craft beer to be regulated and licensed is still a bit of a stretch for more than a few voters. And rightfully so.

The problem of what to do remains.

But the issue in this case is Civil Asset Forfeiture, whatever morality may be used to justify it. Here’s Reason magazine who generally embrace a variety of libertarian perspectives:

“The increased willingness of federal judges to consider the perverse profit incentives created by asset forfeiture, together with the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling on the issue, raises a real question: Are we seeing the twilight of such programs in the United States?

During the last five years or so, more than half of states have passed some form of asset forfeiture reform, limiting what was once a free-for-all cash grab benefiting law enforcement. In places such as Mississippi the reforms were modest—new annual reporting requirements, for instance. New Mexico and Nebraska, however, now mandate criminal convictions before property is forfeited. Most states have landed somewhere in the middle, adding procedural protections for property owners and rebalancing the burden of proof in forfeiture hearings.

Until recently, a major roadblock to all these reforms was Jeff Sessions. The former U.S. attorney general rolled back Obama-era restrictions and emboldened state and local law enforcement to ramp up seizures—and bypass stricter state laws—by partnering with federal authorities. How much longer that loophole remains open depends on Congress.”

As the Washington Examiner notes, the groups cheering this SCOTUS ruling include:

• The ACLU
• The SPLC which, unusually as of late, seems to have a reasonable and legitimate stance
• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• The Koch Brother’s Americans For Prosperity

Reason is right. This ball has been firmly punted into Congress’ lap by SCOTUS. Let’s see if they actually pass some restrictive legislation on asset forfeiture.

Comments