Criminal Defense Lawyers

Excessive Fines Clause: Limits on Asset Forfeiture

The Excessive Fines Clause: An Important Limit on Asset Forfeiture

Asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity. While these laws aim to fight crime, concerns have emerged about their potential for abuse and violation of civil liberties. This is where the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment becomes relevant, as it acts as a constitutional limit on excessive asset forfeitures.

What is Asset Forfeiture?

Asset forfeiture refers to the government seizing property suspected of being involved in a crime. This could include cash, cars, houses, or any valuables. Police can confiscate assets without even filing criminal charges, leading to concerns about abuse of power.There are civil and criminal varieties of asset forfeiture. In civil forfeiture, it is the property itself – not its owner – that is considered guilty. This means police can take assets without convicting or even charging the owner with a crime. Criminal forfeiture, in contrast, happens after the property owner is convicted as part of their sentence.

The Growth of Civil Asset Forfeiture

The use of civil asset forfeiture has exploded since the 1980s as part of the war on drugs. In 1986, the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund took in just under $94 million. By 2014, annual deposits surpassed $4.5 billion – a 4,667% increase, adjusting for inflation.Police departments have a financial incentive to pursue civil forfeiture, as they often get to keep seized assets or their proceeds to fund their operations. This has raised concerns about conflict of interest and encouraged aggressive use of forfeiture. Most states allow 100% of forfeiture proceeds to go to law enforcement, though some have enacted reforms.

Calls for Reform and Constitutional Limits

With civil forfeiture growth has come criticism. Opponents argue its procedures are unfair and harmful to property rights, as the owner bears the burden of challenging the seizure to get their property back. Stories have emerged of police abusing civil forfeiture to take money and property from innocent people without filing any criminal charges.In response, there have been bipartisan calls for forfeiture reform. Measures include shifting the burden of proof to the government, barring forfeitures without convictions, limiting equitable sharing with federal agencies, and restricting police budget reliance on forfeiture proceeds.The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment also serves as a check on abusive forfeitures. It states:“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”This restricts the government’s ability to use fines and forfeitures in a grossly disproportionate way that serves no legitimate law enforcement purpose.

The Timbs v. Indiana Supreme Court Ruling

A recent 2019 Supreme Court case affirmed that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local governments. In Timbs v. Indiana, Tyson Timbs challenged the forfeiture of his $42,000 Land Rover after pleading guilty to selling $225 of heroin.The Indiana Supreme Court had ruled the Excessive Fines Clause did not apply to the states. But SCOTUS unanimously overruled this, deeming it “incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” This established that states and cities cannot impose excessive fines or forfeitures.Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg explained that “[t]he historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming.” She cited centuries of opposition to excessive economic sanctions tracing back to Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. The Clause ultimately made it into the Virginia Declaration of Rights, then the Northwest Ordinance, and was included in the Eighth Amendment adopted in 1791.

What Makes a Forfeiture “Excessive”?

While Timbs established that states must respect the Excessive Fines Clause, what makes a forfeiture excessive? The Court’s prior ruling in United States v. Bajakajian (1998) helps shed light. Here the Court identified factors like:

• The severity of the underlying offense
• The maximum penalties for that offense
• The harm caused by the crime

Comparing the offense gravity and penalties to the value seized is key. As Justice Ginsburg wrote in Timbs:“The Court has stressed that the question is whether ‘the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.'”For Timbs himself, the trial court indeed found seizing his $42,000 vehicle for a $225 drug crime grossly disproportionate. This suggests the forfeiture was excessive under the Eighth Amendment.

Implications Going Forward

By deeming the Excessive Fines Clause incorporated against the states, Timbs has meaningful implications for forfeitures. It provides a way for victims to constitutionally challenge seizures, acting as an additional safeguard against abuse.This will likely prompt more excessive fines litigation in state courts over forfeitures. It may also deter aggressive use of civil forfeiture, as police face new scrutiny over whether seizures are proportionate or driven by financial incentives. There have already been successful excessive fines cases in states post-Timbs concerning cars, cash, and even real estate.However, Timbs leaves some issues unresolved. The Court did not provide a clear test for determining if a forfeiture is excessive, which lower courts must now grapple with. Factors like the property value, underlying offense, and claimant finances must be weighed. It also remains unclear how Timbs might impact equitable sharing arrangements where local agencies collaborate with federal agencies.In Justice Thomas’s concurrence, he argued Timbs “does not resolve whether forfeiture operations that do not benefit the State or involve state agents implicate the Fourteenth Amendment.” This suggests the ruling may not directly constrain federal adoptions of state-seized assets. But there are still open questions that must get sorted out in future litigation.

Conclusion

Asset forfeiture can be an important tool, but also risks harming civil liberties if misused. The Excessive Fines Clause provides vital constitutional limits, restricting grossly disproportionate seizures in service of financial gain instead of legitimate law enforcement aims. While Timbs established states must abide by the Clause, its full implications have yet to play out in the courts. But it marks an important milestone in checking the unrestrained use of fines and forfeitures.Going forward, we will likely see many more excessive fines challenges to asset forfeitures in state courts. Timbs reinforces that the property rights of citizens – even those accused of crimes – cannot be violated arbitrarily. It will push governments to justify forfeitures as serving important law enforcement purposes, not merely raising revenue. This underscores how constitutional rights retain meaning even during times of perceived crisis. Though the “war on drugs” led to unchecked forfeiture growth for decades, the Excessive Fines Clause has now emerged as an important bulwark.

Resources

The Excessive Fines Clause – Constitutional Rights FoundationHow Crime Pays: The Unconstitutionality of Modern Civil Asset Forfeiture as a Tool of Criminal Law Enforcement – Harvard Law ReviewGuilty Property – YouTube Video Explaining Civil Asset ForfeiturePolicing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture – ACLU ReportLitigating Civil Forfeiture Cases in State Court After Timbs – Article Discussing Implications