Supreme Court clamps down on ‘excessive fines’ by states
Certainly, it won’t end the practice. But hopefully, it’ll make it a lot less profitable.
Is there a definition of “excessive fines” that the states can use as a guideline?
As I understand it, the ruling prohibits states and cities from taking “excessive” amounts. Definition of excessive is still to be determined, but in the case in question, the guy lost a truck that was worth four times more than the amount he could be legally fined. Governments will have to limit themselves to taking less than that from now on, but how much less is yet to be determined. So the ruling is better than nothing, but not great.
On the plus side, Clarence Thomas has, more or less, declared that he views the whole idea of civil asset forfeiture as unconstitutional. If there are four other justices who share that opinion, it may eventually be abolished when the right case makes it the Supreme Court.
Seriously, the Indiana Supreme Court thinks that the 8th amendment only applies to Federal action? I don’t suppose they think any other amendments only apply federally, do they?
If a cop takes your stuff under CF but doesn’t charge you with any crime, is that considered excessive? Or, since there’s no fine or charge, does this ruling not apply?
The grand jury requirement of the 5th Amendment and the civil jury requirement of the 7th Amendment have not yet been applied to the states.
The 2nd Amendment was only applied to the states in 2010.
Originally, the entire Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government.
I don’t think the respondents made a spirited argument along these lines. What the state of Indiana argued was more along the lines of, sure excessive fines are unconstitutional, but taking a guy’s vehicle isn’t a fine so that prohibition didn’t apply.
I don’t think that’s been technically considered a fine as a general rule, because it’s the asset that’s considered the criminal, and I guess it gets the death penalty, or perpetual involuntary servitude, or something…
Unless it’s a business… that type of person can operate with near impunity, apparently.
From reading the opinion, I don’t believe that it goes even that far (to say that four times the fine is excessive). It simply says that the 8th Amendment indeed applies to the states and it is back to Indiana to determine if the “fine” in this case was excessive.
Further, it seems to leave open the question of whether a civil forfeiture is even a fine as the Court expressly declined to overturn prior precedent because it was not asked to do so.
Precedence for “excessive” was linked in this thread:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=871147
The cruel and unusual punishment clause was already incorporated, as an example, Deliberate Indifference. It was the Excessive fines provision that was not, this ruling does just that, incorporates it.
The 3rd AM has not been addressed by the SC either concerning the incorporation doctrine.
Not by the SC, true, but the Second Circuit has held that the 3rd Amendment is incorporated against the states.
The 7th Amendment is not incorporated against the states, nor is the 5th Amendment grand jury requirement.
It’s already got the attention of the police chiefs association in Michigan. The head of that group was quoted as saying “ The IRS and courts seize stuff, why can’t we?”