Link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

Based on one very quick reading of the case, my understanding is:

1. Defendant ("D") purchased a $42,000 Land Rover using funds from a life estate policy covering the life of his now-deceased father.

2. D sells $225 worth of heroin to undercover cops. Ends up paying ~$1200 in fines, one year on house arrest, 5 years probation

3. Max penalty in Indiana for his crimes is $10,000

4. Cops seize his Land Rover, arguing it was used in the performance of selling heroin.

5. He sues the State of Indiana, arguing that the seizure is an excessive fine.

6. Trial Court and Appellate Court rule in D's favor. Indiana Supreme Court reverses. D appeals to US Supreme Court.

7. Supreme Court rules that the 8th amendment protects against excessive fines, and that because the rule against excessive fines is part of our national history and tradition, the 14th Amendment makes that part of the 8th amendment apply to the states. Further, excessive fines can be used for silencing political enemies and income generation, rather than being a legitimate part of the process of "retribution and rehabilitation" that we want the justice system to provide. When a State's actions benefit the State, the Court will carefully scrutinize those actions.

8. State of Indiana tried to argue that while "excessive fines" are part of the 8th amendment, it does not apply specifically to civil in rem forfeitures (aka property seizure).

Supreme Court cites a case clarifying the way the analysis is done--only the broad category of "excessive fines" is reviewed, rather than picking out very specific instances of fines, like property seizure.

9. This was a unanimous decision. Technically it was 7-0 with 2 concurring opinions. The two concurrences were Gorsuch and Thomas, who both agreed with the outcome, but said that a different part of the 14th amendment (privileges and immunities) is what should be used, rather than what the other 7 relied on (the due process clause).

10. The case was remanded to Indiana Courts for rulings consistent with this opinion. The Supreme Court answered only whether excessive fines, barred to the US government by the 8th amendment, also applied to the States through the 14th amendment. It did not answer whether the seizure of the Land Rover was actually excessive. Indiana will (get a chance) to decide that.

Based on my reading, it appears that the avenue for property seizure is based upon fines defined by statute. To perform a civil asset seizure, a person must be convicted of a crime. If they are convicted of a crime, the seizure must not constitute an excessive fine. Is this how others interpreted the ruling?

user:	lososos
created:	October 15, 2018
karma:	20