Court is unanimous
in civil forfeiture
The U.S. Supreme Court often is as divided as the rest of the country. It is possible, then, that the justices occasionally take a case upon which they can all agree.
Indiana’s law enforcement and court system came through last week, providing a case in which a $400 heroin sale resulted in the confiscation of a $40,000 Land Rover. That is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s ban on excessive fines. However, the Supreme Court had never explicitly affirmed that that part of the Eighth Amendment applies to actions taken by the states. Consider that problem resolved, and rightly so. The guy who dealt the drugs deserved to be punished, but seizing an vehicle with 100 times the value of the sale defines excessive.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion said it’s a disturbing trend among law enforcement agencies to seek the civil forfeiture of property that’s linked to a crime as a way to get extra revenue during tight budget times. Hopefully the ruling will reduce the incentive to do this.
Jack Ryan, Enterprise-Journal
