In a unanimous decision SCOTUS ruled that constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions.
This is long overdue. States have been enriching themselves for far too long with questionable seizures of property without any oversight at all. It’s often seemed to me like an official form of highway robbery. I’m pleased to see also that the decision was unanimous.This transcends politics.
Does this really outlaw civil forfeiture?
And can I raise the argument that a $300 ticket for speeding in a school zone is excessive if its greatly different than what other states charge?
This decision won’t outlaw civil forfeiture, but it will likely tighten up the rules a bunch.
Does the decision provide any guidance on just what is considered “excessive”?
In this case the vehicle was valued ~4x the maximum fine and wasn’t purchases with criminal proceeds. That’s why the trial court ruled against the seizure. The opinion is mostly just about whether the 8th amendment applies to states, not about what counts as excessive. By my ill-informed reading.
There is some precedence for what constitutes excessive fines, which will now be applied to state civil forfeiture.
In the case in question, there was a maximum statutory penalty, so presumably property seized above that penalty is excessive on it’s face. There are also multi-factor tests to argue that fines under the maximum are excessive in specific cases.
Informative link, thanks. I’ll add to my above post that the question wasn’t just about whether the 8th applies, but whether the forfeiture counts as a fine. Looks like it does. Again, we are many layers deep in IANAL here.
What SCOTUS did was say, “Yes, this principle applies to a certain broad type of action.” What they did not do was to lay out details of how and when. That step will come next, and it will likely be through a combination of state and federal action.