Brian Silber Law

Civil Forfeiture Attorney

Free Initial Consultation

(954) 462-3636

Show the Way

Land Rover Involved in Indiana Civil Asset Forfeiture Case Returned to Owner for Now, Final Fate Uncertain

By

aleks-marinkovic-jiG6OVvVidg-unsplash-300x201A $40,000 Land Rover seized by the state of Indiana in connection with a drug crime has been returned to its owner, Tyson Timbs, pending final determination by judicial authorities as to the appropriateness of the seizure of the vehicle by law enforcement under civil asset forfeiture. This long legal battle has made it to the United States Supreme Court and twice to the Indiana Supreme Court. Mr. Timbs is represented by counsel from the Institute for Justice, which is a law firm that works on prominent public interest cases.

Civil asset forfeiture is a method used by law enforcement to impound the ill-gotten gains as the result of a crime from being used to continue to symie law enforcement, such as a white collar criminal using millions fraudulently obtained from insider trading to work against the government as they make their case regarding the pending charges and allegations. Importantly, only being charged with a crime, not convicted, is enough for civil asset forfeiture to be legally enforceable. There are likely many Americans who are unaware of this.

However, civil asset forfeiture only applies to the money, property, or other assets which has been illegally obtained. It does not apply to those things which were purchased or obtained legally. For example, if Defendant A is a doctor by day but a drug dealer by night, there are some funds and property where his legitimate, legal income makes them unable to be seized. Defendant A’s speedboat purchased with money from the drug operation would certainly be fair game as would any other funds that come directly from the illegal operation. However, his home purchased before he began his illegal activities and his 401k which he has been contributing to would not be eligible for civil asset forfeiture.

In Mr. Timbs’ case, he was charged with and pleaded guilty to the crime of selling heroin. As part of the charges, the police seized his Land Rover believing it to have been acquired as part of the drug scheme. However, Mr. Timbs was able to show that the Land Rover was acquired as part of a life insurance payout he received following the death of his father. After various legal rulings at the appellate level, the return of the vehicle to Timbs was found to be proper due to the fact it’s seizure constituted an ‘excessive’ fine for the crime. Timbs’ case is legally significant because it led the US Supreme Court to instruct the Indiana Supreme Court to determine what constituted an excessive fine in their state, leading to the creation of a three prong test.

While this case may not be settled yet, it has given direction regarding civil asset forfeiture for future cases in the state of Indiana and may be instructive to other states and jurisdictions grappling with this important issue. No matter what the direct outcome is for Mr. Timbs, we can see that this area of the law is beginning to be clarified at least in Indiana.

South Florida Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

Has your property been seized using asset forfeiture? Contact Brian Silber, P.A. to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of South Florida’s most experienced civil asset forfeiture attorneys.

Tyson Timbs Fought for the Return of His Car. Now the U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear His Case

By

In April, I reported on the case of Tyson Timbs. Back then, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the 2013 seizure of his car using the process known as civil asset forfeiture. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear his case and determine whether the vehicle should be returned to him.

Tyson had been living in Ohio for years, struggling with addiction. After a work injury, he became addicted to opioids. Later, he turned to heroin. Then his Aunt Wendy fell ill. Tyson moved to Marion, Indiana to look after her.

“I actually thought, ‘Hey, maybe this is going to be the cure to all my problems,’” says Tyson. He hoped he could start a new life in Indiana and leave his addiction behind. Tyson soon learned he had grown dependent on the drugs.

Tyson was arrested in 2013 for selling $500 worth of heroin to undercover police officers. He was sentenced to a year of home detention and five years of probation. Since then, Tyson has turned his life around. Today he is clean, and he speaks at state and local task forces about his fight with drug addiction.

While Tyson accepts responsibility for his criminal actions, he has fought the seizure of his car. It was taken at the same time as he was arrested. However, since the car was taken using a civil and not a criminal procedure, that case is unrelated to the criminal case which was brought against him. In fact, in Indiana a criminal conviction is not needed for law enforcement to seize property–they only need to connect the property to a crime by “a preponderance of the evidence” to take it.

Tyson’s legal argument rests on the Excessive Fines Clause of Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In Indiana, the maximum fine that can be levied against Tyson for his crimes is $10,000. However, the vehicle seized was worth more than four times that amount. Tyson’s attorney, Wesley Hottot, says this violates the Constitution.

“The Indiana Supreme Court… decided, to everyone’s surprise, the Excessive Fines Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not apply in this state,” says Hottot. “This case is about more than just Tyson’s vehicle. This case is about whether 330 million Americans enjoy the protections of the U.S. Constitution.”

At first, Tyson was angry at what had happened. “I hated the police for what they did to me,” he says. Today, however, he is focused on the bigger picture. “This isn’t about getting my truck back. That hasn’t been the case for me for a long time,” explains Tyson. “For me, this is principle: they shouldn’t be able to do this to people.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a brief supporting Tyson’s case. In it, they argue the use of civil asset forfeiture to impose excessive fines is “undermining economic growth.”

“Newspapers and legal literature from the 1980s forward are replete with examples of large fines being handed out for even the smallest of violations—at great cost to businesses and their customers,” states the brief.

The effect of the loss of his vehicle on Tyson’s family is clear. He now has a job, but he has to borrow Aunt Wendy’s car for the commute. This means she is forced to take public transport for her kidney dialysis appointments.

The Supreme Court will hear Tyson’s case this fall. Their decision could reshape the use of civil asset forfeiture across the country.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Source

2018-08-31 U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Indiana Civil Forfeiture Case

Supreme Court May Take up Civil Asset Forfeiture Case

By

https://www.briansilber.com/files/2018/04/lossy-page1-1562px-U.S._Supreme_Court_building_Washington_D.C_LCCN2011631106.tif_-300x230.jpgA case of civil asset forfeiture involving a Hoosier’s seized Land Rover may end up on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket. If they agree to hear the case, it could transform the approach of law enforcement to civil asset forfeiture across the nation.

Civil asset forfeiture is the process where law enforcement can seize property suspected of being involved in a crime. It is legal in most states, and few states require a criminal conviction for the property to be seized. Proceeds from the profits of civil asset forfeiture are often used to fund law enforcement, leading to accusations of policing for profit.

The case which may be heard by the Supreme Court involves Tyson Timbs. After he was injured at work, he was prescribed the opioid, hydrocodone. He later became addicted to opioids and began to buy pills on the black market. He later turned to heroin.

In 2013, undercover officers arrested Timbs when he sold them four grams of heroin. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year of home detention and five years of probation. He attended a drug treatment program supervised by the court and paid court fees and costs totaling over $1,200.

“I committed a crime, then I did my time and cleaned up my life,” said Timbs.

The state also seized Timbs’ Land Rover. When his father had died, Timbs received $73,000 in proceeds from his life-insurance policy. He used $41,000 of that money to buy himself the car. Timbs’ vehicle was seized because he used his car when buying heroin for his own use.

“With [civil asset] forfeiture, they are trying to take away one of the few things I own, that I bought with money from my dad. Forfeiture only makes it more challenging for people in my position to clean up and become contributing members of society,” explained Timbs.

While cases involving disputes over civil asset forfeiture are common, this case is unique in the legal argument it is based on. Timbs’ lawyers argue that the Eighth Amendment, which bans excessive fines, should shield Timbs’ Land Rover from seizure by the state.

As Indiana law only allows for a $10,000 fine for Timbs’ crime, the court in Indiana initially agreed that seizing a car worth over $40,000 was “grossly disproportionate.” This decision was upheld in an appeal.

However, the Indiana Supreme Court later approved the seizure. The judges issued an opinion saying that, as the Excessive Fine Clause of the Eighth Amendment had not been applied to states before, it did not need to be applied here.

“Indiana is a sovereign state within our federal system,” explained the judges in their unanimous opinion. “We elect not to impose federal obligations on the State that the federal government itself has not mandated.”

In January, Timbs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case. When it was first written, the Bill of Rights applied only to federal powers over Americans. Over the years, a process of “selective incorporation” has seen those federal rights gradually be applied to the states as well.

The most recent incorporation came in 2010 when the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms was applied to the states. In the majority opinion issued by Justice Alito, he noted that the ban on peacetime quartering of troops in private homes and the prohibition of excessive fines were the only two remaining sections of the Bill of Rights the Supreme Court had yet to issue a decision on.

If the U.S. Supreme Court elects to hear the case, it would be an opportunity for limits to be set on law enforcement’s use of civil asset forfeiture. It could give Timothy Timbs and thousands of Americans like him—either people trying to rebuild their lives after making mistakes, or people who have had their property seized unjustly—the chance for relief.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Sources

02-01-2018 Can State Governments Impose Excessive Fines, Treat Citizens Like Walking ATMs? Indiana Says Yes

04-17-2018 Will the Supreme Court Rein in Civil Forfeiture?