• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Indiana Argues Right to Seize Any Car For Speeding

Silver

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,080
Likes
7,752
#1
State Of Indiana Argues In Supreme Court For Right To Seize Any Car For Speeding
by Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/06/2019 - 16:35



Despite losing in the United States Supreme Court, the state of Indiana is still arguing that there are virtually no eighth amendment limits on what it can seize using civil asset forfeiture, according to Reason.



In fact, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher argued in Indiana Supreme Court last week that it would be constitutional to seize any and every car that exceeded the speed limit. It was an argument that drew laughter from the U.S. Supreme Court last year.
Fisher said:

"This is the position that we already staked out in the Supreme Court when I was asked by Justice Breyer whether a Bugatti can be forfeited for going over five miles over the speed limit. Historically the answer to that question is yes, and we're sticking with that position here."

The issue has been brought to light as a result of the Indiana Supreme Court reconsidering a case where a 2015 seizure of Tyson Timbs' $42,000 Land Rover, after he was convicted of a drug felony, was argued to have violated his eighth amendment protections against excessive fines and fees.
Tyson Timbs


In February, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling that Timbs "could not challenge the seizure on Eighth Amendment grounds because the excessive fines clause had not yet been applied, or 'incorporated,' to the states."

It also brought to light the power of the practice, which allows authorities to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity. The Indiana Supreme Court will now have to figure out how to determine whether a civil forfeiture is excessive or not. The result could either check - or reinforce - the state government’s power.

Lawyers for the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, argued that the seizure of Timbs' car, which was not purchased with drug proceeds and was worth four times the maximum fine for his crime, was a disproportional punishment.

The Institute for Justice had to petition the US Supreme Court to review the case after the Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Timbs. The state argued that the excessive fines clause did not apply to the practice of civil asset forfeiture which operates under the legal fiction that it is an action against the property itself, not the owner.

Both sides of the aisle in the U.S. Supreme Court have expressed skepticism about civil asset forfeiture in past rulings and they were not impressed by Fisher's argument. A judge even forced counsel for the state of Indiana to admit it would be constitutional to then seize any car going over the speed limit.


According to Reason:
The state of Indiana, although forced to recognize that the Eighth Amendment applies to civil forfeiture, now insists that the test that should apply to determine whether the seizure was excessive is not the proportionality, but rather whether the government can prove a nexus between Timbs' car and the illegal activity - a standard that would put virtually no check on the amount of property police could seize as long there was some connection to a crime.​
Justice Loretta Rush pushed back on the argument:

"So where's the limits? If the state decides you're going over x miles per hour so we're going to take your car, is there any limit to that government power?"
Fisher responded:
"No, look, I've gone out on a limb on the Bugatti, and I don't think I'm going back."​
Institute for Justice lawyer Sam Gedge said:
"Indiana has resorted to an increasingly dangerous view of governmental power over the years it has been fighting to keep Timbs' car. In the State's view, it can constitutionally forfeit a Bugatti that goes five miles over the speed limit. And the State insists that it can take any property from any person who has ever struggled with drug addiction. That boundless view of governmental power cannot be squared with the Constitution."​
 

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,756
Likes
8,092
#2
State Of Indiana Argues In Supreme Court For Right To Seize Any Car For Speeding
by Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/06/2019 - 16:35



Despite losing in the United States Supreme Court, the state of Indiana is still arguing that there are virtually no eighth amendment limits on what it can seize using civil asset forfeiture, according to Reason.



In fact, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher argued in Indiana Supreme Court last week that it would be constitutional to seize any and every car that exceeded the speed limit. It was an argument that drew laughter from the U.S. Supreme Court last year.
Fisher said:

"This is the position that we already staked out in the Supreme Court when I was asked by Justice Breyer whether a Bugatti can be forfeited for going over five miles over the speed limit. Historically the answer to that question is yes, and we're sticking with that position here."

The issue has been brought to light as a result of the Indiana Supreme Court reconsidering a case where a 2015 seizure of Tyson Timbs' $42,000 Land Rover, after he was convicted of a drug felony, was argued to have violated his eighth amendment protections against excessive fines and fees.
Tyson Timbs


In February, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling that Timbs "could not challenge the seizure on Eighth Amendment grounds because the excessive fines clause had not yet been applied, or 'incorporated,' to the states."

It also brought to light the power of the practice, which allows authorities to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity. The Indiana Supreme Court will now have to figure out how to determine whether a civil forfeiture is excessive or not. The result could either check - or reinforce - the state government’s power.

Lawyers for the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, argued that the seizure of Timbs' car, which was not purchased with drug proceeds and was worth four times the maximum fine for his crime, was a disproportional punishment.

The Institute for Justice had to petition the US Supreme Court to review the case after the Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Timbs. The state argued that the excessive fines clause did not apply to the practice of civil asset forfeiture which operates under the legal fiction that it is an action against the property itself, not the owner.

Both sides of the aisle in the U.S. Supreme Court have expressed skepticism about civil asset forfeiture in past rulings and they were not impressed by Fisher's argument. A judge even forced counsel for the state of Indiana to admit it would be constitutional to then seize any car going over the speed limit.


According to Reason:
The state of Indiana, although forced to recognize that the Eighth Amendment applies to civil forfeiture, now insists that the test that should apply to determine whether the seizure was excessive is not the proportionality, but rather whether the government can prove a nexus between Timbs' car and the illegal activity - a standard that would put virtually no check on the amount of property police could seize as long there was some connection to a crime.​
Justice Loretta Rush pushed back on the argument:

"So where's the limits? If the state decides you're going over x miles per hour so we're going to take your car, is there any limit to that government power?"
Fisher responded:
"No, look, I've gone out on a limb on the Bugatti, and I don't think I'm going back."​
Institute for Justice lawyer Sam Gedge said:
"Indiana has resorted to an increasingly dangerous view of governmental power over the years it has been fighting to keep Timbs' car. In the State's view, it can constitutionally forfeit a Bugatti that goes five miles over the speed limit. And the State insists that it can take any property from any person who has ever struggled with drug addiction. That boundless view of governmental power cannot be squared with the Constitution."​
So we have liberal justices on the SC voting to limit a states right to civil asset forfeiture...but we have a supposedly conservative state - Indiana - that believes that the more powerful the government...the better. And it their view - its legal...

And Pence is from Indiana...

Does anything make sense in this world anymore? Have I gone crazy? WTF happened to this country...where did all these whack-jobs come from?

Oh how far we have fallen...its so sad...
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,790
Likes
34,762
Location
Qmerica
#4
I guess we need to redefine "reasonable".
 

Uglytruth

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
6,663
Likes
10,074
#5
Soooooo Indiana leased the Turnpike (pay road) to Australia I believe......... do they get to enforce the laws & keep the cars? After all it's "their" road for the next X number of years right? Or do they get to riase the speed limit to 100 mph? It's their road right?
 

Someone_else

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,513
Likes
3,300
#6
I guess we need to redefine "reasonable".
If you try to define "reasonable", lawyers and judges will bend logic to meet their desired outcome. Why not require all cases to be decided by a jury? The system will still try to manipulate the jury, but there is a chance that ordinary people will make the right decision.
 

Treasure Searcher

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,345
Likes
2,763
#7
If the state wants to confiscate property, it can come back to bite them.

In a related topic, some land was donated to a state university in my state. The state was happy to take the donation, as the land was supposed to be used by the university for research purposes.

After the state took the donation, it was found out the land had radioactive waste buried under it. Seems it is just down the highway from a major military installation. I'm sure the radioactive waste was buried there years ago and it quite nasty.

The state though they were getting an asset, turned out it is a liability.
 

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
2,693
Likes
2,155
#8
I wonder how much the state has spent on this.
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
32,478
Likes
42,328
#9
I just won't let me or my money anywhere near Indiana. I think I'll survive!
 

GOLDZILLA

Harvurd Koleej Jeenyus
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
7,770
Likes
7,617
#10
So does that mean the feds can confiscate any of indianas property where any crime has been committed.... That means all of their politicians should lose their houses right ?
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
27,891
Likes
35,416
#11
in their view, it would not matter resident or not?

so if you drive thru on your way to somewhere, get caught speeding, and they impound your vehicle on the spot?

and they argue in court this is reasonable..............

the supremes punt the ball back to the states, and they double down?

good grief man,

"could not challenge the seizure on Eighth Amendment grounds because the excessive fines clause had not yet been applied, or 'incorporated,' to the states."
to me, isn't this about the dumbest statement? It was sent up to be adjudicated and you punt due to semantics?
isn't your JOB supposed to be the final say by the highest court in the land?

instead they punt

has anyone else noticed how as of late, they have been punting a lot of stuff, a lot
something is going on there where they are unwilling or standing aside on many subjects

-----------
remember kenyan kare?
they stated it doesn't pass unless you call it a tax, then we will stand aside

in that case, they stated it doesn't work as written, but can work if you do x.

they started calling it a tax and it hasn't been challenged since,

point is, they resolved it



where did all these whack-jobs come from?
they are buried in the bowels of .gov everywhere Straw
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
32,478
Likes
42,328
#12
As long as there is government there will be tyranny
 

kiffertom

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
319
Likes
308
#13
as my late old neighbor use to say"you can only shove so much shit down a mother f...er's throat"!
 

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
2,693
Likes
2,155
#14
Another good reason to run a reliable older car, If somebody steals it, it don't hurt as much.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,188
Likes
6,378
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#15
funny, I travel through ill and full of noise and I get caught.....how does that cop/f'n cop get my rig with out a warrant for the stop? Yeah they just danced all around that when stroking their dicks and spewing the residue on the constitution.

f ill-a-noise....
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,188
Likes
6,378
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#16
Another good reason to run a reliable older car, If somebody steals it, it don't hurt as much.
dude….I got a letter that intimated "due to an internal error we are dropping charges." Yes I was running commando. So get with it and quit propagating people should push baby-buggy-bumpers with a toy doll in them when they go through the land of Lincoln logs. And, as an ass-side htf/how the fuck does any one get ling-con out of linn-colon?