There are some big legal challenges coming up against civil asset forfeiture, as the criticism for this controversial practice continues to grow and be challenged in court so long as the abuses continue.
At the end of October, the Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments reportedly asking the court to put an end to the state's methods of distributing their civil asset forfeiture funds. Specifically, the funds are allegedly required by the state constitution to be funneled toward the state's schools. These are funds that are being confiscated from people who likely have not been convicted of any wrongdoing. Agents of the state confiscate these funds and rather than sending it to the schools, there are allegations that most of the funds have instead been going toward the police and prosecutors in the state.
It's alleged that roughly 90 percent of the funds are being sent to prosecutors and the police...
Back in 2016, a group of taxpayers from Indiana had launched a lawsuit looking to try and put a stop to the money allegedly being sent to prosecutors and the police, but a previous court judge decided that they could keep the funds. Now though, they are back and asking the Supreme Court to reconsider the matter and possibly reverse the ruling.
In another matter, one man from Indiana is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case challenging the civil asset forfeiture process after authorities in the state of Indiana had confiscated his Land Rover that was worth $42,000.
The value of his vehicle was worth more than the maximum fine that he would have received for the crime he had previously plead guilty to selling drugs, that fine was $10,000.
“This is the only state in the nation where prosecutions for civil forfeiture can be outsourced to private law firms who then work on contingency based on how much property they forfeit,... Tyson's case, this very case, was brought by a private law firm working on contingency. We have to ask ourselves if these types of cases would even be brought if the prosecutor wasn't financially self-interested." - Timb's attorney, W. Hottot
Arguments will reportedly focus on whether or not the Eighth Amendment provides protection from being excessively fined when it comes to civil asset forfeiture proceedings. The Indiana Supreme Court previously ruled on this matter and decided that they wouldn't stop excessive civil asset forfeitures until the U.S. Supreme Court determines a ruling. They also argued that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines does not apply to fines that get imposed by states. Now, the Supreme Court is set to argue the issue of excessive fines this fall.
"The only people who really like civil forfeiture is cops,... because they can seize stuff and use money to fund the department." - I. Samuel, associate professor from Indiana University's Maurer School of Law
Timb's admits that the battle has been difficult and he has wanted to give up, but if his efforts of pursuing this legal action can help anyone else in the future, who might fall into a similar situation, then he says his efforts have been worth it. If successful, this could open up a wave of challenges against civil asset forfeiture.
This practice should be brought to an end as it constitutes a direct assault on the property rights of American people by denying them due process and allowing police and authorities around the country to keep their private property without any conviction of wrongdoing. By allowing authorities to confiscate this property, with limited judicial oversight, and then to permit those same authorities to use the property as their own, has unsurprisingly fueled far too many abuses.
Pics:
pixabay
pic 2 - imgflip
