The U.S. Supreme Court
Of late, very little unites the conservative and liberal wings of the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 682 (Feb. 20, 2019), the court unanimously held in favor of Tyson Timbs, a convicted heroin dealer faced with losing his $42,000 automobile under Indiana’s civil forfeiture law.
The specific issue in Timbs was whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The question arose following the seizure of Timbs’ Land Rover pursuant to an Indiana civil forfeiture statute authorizing the forfeiture of vehicles used to “transport or … facilitate the transportation of” a controlled substance. Ind. Code §34-24-1-1. Timbs pled guilty to dealing a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft, and it was alleged that the Land Rover had been used to transport heroin in connection with his criminal activity. Timbs, 139 S.Ct. at 686.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
