U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It&#x27;s actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary.<p>Timbs was convicted of possession&#x2F;sale&#x2F;whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well.<p>Timbs sued or appealed the confiscation by Indiana, which he he could prove he didn&#x27;t buy with drug money. The judge of the lower court of Indiana agreed.<p>The state appealed the judge&#x27;s ruling. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court&#x27;s decision, ruling that the 8th Amendment did not apply to the states.<p>The SCotUS unanimously disagreed and vacated the Indiana Supreme Court&#x27;s ruling. The 8th Amendment <i>does</i> apply to the states. However, <i>that&#x27;s all that they ruled upon</i>. They didn&#x27;t not rule on whether or not confiscating the SUV was an excessive fine, and remanded the case back to the Indiana state courts.<p>Now the state of Indiana will be given an opportunity to prove in Indiana court that confiscating the SUV is not an excessive fine. That seems unlikely, however, since the charge Timbs was convicted of carried a statutory maximum fine of $10,000, well below the value of the SUV.