Like millions of Americans, Tyson Timbs was addicted to opioids. And like thousands of others, when his legal prescription to hydrocodone expired, he turned to buying pills from drug dealers. Before long, his addiction drove him to switch from pills to heroin.
For a brief while, Timbs reclaimed his sobriety. He moved to Indiana to live with his aunt and restart his life. But he soon relapsed. Out of money and addicted, Timbs began to sell heroin. On two occasions, he drove his Land Rover to deliver heroin to undercover officers. On his way to a third deal, the police pulled him over and arrested him.
{mosads}Timbs later pleaded guilty to two drug-related charges. But during his criminal case, Indiana went one step further. The state also filed a civil claim to take Timbs’ Land Rover, citing state forfeiture laws.
An Indiana trial court found that Indiana’s civil forfeiture claim violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which in part bars “excessive fines.” The court considered the obvious: The cost of the Land Rover ($42,000) was grossly disproportionate to the maximum criminal fine ($10,000). A state appeals court confirmed the ruling. The Indiana Supreme Court, however, later reversed both courts, concluding that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution did not apply to the states.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will consider Timbs’ case. In doing so, the Court will decide whether the Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause — and its bar on unchecked fees and forfeitures — applies to state and local governments, just as it does to the federal government.
At the Supreme Court, Timbs should prevail. The Eighth Amendment’s two other protections — prohibiting “excessive bail” and “cruel and unusual punishments” — have already been found to apply to the states. It makes little sense to create an exception for the Excessive Fines Clause, especially since all three equally serve to protect individuals from unfair government punishments.
Beyond the legal arguments, there are also practical reasons why the Excessive Fines Clause should apply to our state and local governments.
First off, fines, fees and forfeitures provide important financial resources for police and local governments. This, in turn, creates maligned incentives that tempt governments to abuse their police powers to satisfy ever more demanding budgets.
Not only do forfeiture laws encourage the purveyors of justice to abuse their power in pursuit of their own profit, they do so to the detriment of public safety. Recent research demonstrates that when local governments rely more heavily on fines, fees and asset forfeiture for government revenue, violent crimes tend to go unsolved. This is particularly the case in less-populated communities.
As more time and resources are dedicated to generating revenue, police departments begin to look more like the IRS than officers sworn “to preserve and protect.” Meanwhile, those charged with paying excessive fines and fees are often pushed further into poverty and, in turn, further into the justice system.
In some instances, individuals may be jailed for their inability to pay or have critical items — such as their driver’s license — taken away, further sabotaging their ability to maintain employment and pay down their debt. These practices pose critical impediments to those re-entering society after time in prison. Even youth, who in theory have fewer financial burdens than adults, are more likely to return to the justice system when fines and fees come into play.
These policies also adversely affect the families and friends of those harmed by these policies. Today, Timbs works in a factory 40 minutes from his home. To drive there, he has to borrow his aunt’s car, forcing his aunt to take the bus to receive kidney dialysis treatments.
The importance of this case will extend far beyond the wrongful forfeiture of Timbs’ Land Rover. Our sacrosanct values of liberty and equality are at stake. When liberty depends on avoiding poverty, we can hardly claim a just system. And when minorities and the poor are disproportionately harmed by fines, fees and forfeitures, “equality under the law” is an ideal long forsaken.
The Supreme Court has an opportunity to check current abuses of power and, in turn, increase the safety — as well as the fiscal and civic health — of society as a whole. It should seize this opportunity before more people are harmed by the unjust use of forfeiture.
Emily Mooney is a justice policy associate at the R Street Institute. Anthony Marcum is a research associate for the Governance Project at the R Street Institute.