The topic is application of the proportionality test (for purposes of the Eighth Amendment bar on excessive fines) in the “use-based” forfeiture of a small time heroin dealer’s Land Rover. The case is State v. Timbs as decided June 10, 2021 in the SCOTSI by way of a 3-1-1 tally of votes.
Starting with a 2016 Appellate Case Note (of a 2/1 COA decision) the Timbs saga has garnered five previous write-ups in the CLB. The SCOTSI ruling of June 10th is hopefully the final chapter, at least until Mr. Timbs is nabbed again for the commission of some criminal offense while using the Land Rover.
Background includes the death of Tyson Timbs’ father and Tyson’s resulting receipt of life insurance proceeds with which he bought a used Land Rover at the price of a bit more than $42,000.00. Clearly, the Land Rover was not acquired with drug dealing proceeds.
Mr. Timbs found himself charged with dealing heroin in a small quantity. He had used the Land Rover to transport the heroin, such that the vehicle was concededly eligible for forfeiture as an “instrumentality” of his offense.
The remaining forfeiture questions were: whether the Eighth Amendment was ever made applicable to the States by way of Fourteenth Amendment “incorporation” and, if so, whether the forfeiture of Timbs’ Land Rover was unconstitutionally disproportionate to his offense.
The trial court held that forfeiture would be disproportionate under an applicable Eighth Amendment ban. The State appealed. A split COA panel affirmed. Transfer was granted.¹ There was an apparent failure (in the trial court) to argue the “excessive fines” ban from Article 1 Sec. 16 of the Indiana Constitution. Despite that initial omission, Article 1 Sec. 16 should have become a post-remand topic. The failure of the parties and the courts to bring Article 1 Sec. 16 into the discussion is a disappointment to the CLB.
In November of 2017 the SCOTSI unanimously reversed Timbs’ favorable trial court ruling on the theory that the Eighth Amendment “excessive fines” ban had not been “incorporated” as a due process ban applicable to the States. The CLB criticized the Opinion (by Justice Slaughter) as appearing to be “result driven” and for its disparate application of the waiver doctrine. Timbs petitioned for certiorari to the SCOTUS, which granted cert and held on February 20, 2019 that Justice Slaughter and his four (4) colleagues on the SCOTSI were all wrong in their conclusion that the Eighth Amendment ban on excessive fines was inapplicable to the States. This is certainly not the first time that the SCOTSI has found itself reversed by the SCOTUS on a constitutional holding.
On remand to the SCOTSI there was an unnecessary, sheepish remand to the trial court. The trial court had already found (before the first appeal) that forfeiture of the Land Rover was “grossly disproportional” to Tyson’s offense.
Not surprisingly, Tyson prevailed again in the trial court. Not surprisingly, the State appealed. This (final?) appeal by the State was a “direct” appeal to the SCOTSI under Ind. Appellate Rule 4(A)(1)(b). Notably, the court below had found a constitutional defect in Indiana forfeiture legislation as applied rather than on the face of the legislation.
On June 10, 2021 the Opinion was by C.J. Rush. Justice Slaughter concurred with a separate Opinion, still smarting (it would seem) from the SCOTUS rejection of his prior Opinion based upon his best constitutional scholarship. The opinion of Justice Slaughter showed concern over the perceived vagueness in the “excessiveness” test. As described in the majority Opinion, the test to be applied to the Timbs forfeiture has two aspects: instrumentality; and proportionality. The former aspect was not challenged. Rather, Timbs prevailed on the proportionality issue thanks to the trial court’s favorable finding. Proportionality analysis is two-pronged in considering on one hand the “harshness” of the forfeiture and on the other hand the gravity of the crime and his culpability for the vehicle’s misuse. A fuller description of the “proportionality framework” may be found in State v. Timbs, 134 N.e.3d 12, 35-39 (Ind. 2019). The June 10th dissent of Justice Massa challenged whether civil forfeiture could ever be “grossly disproportionate” to the crime of dealing heroin.
If I were Tyson Timbs I would enjoy my Land Rover while realizing that it may be a law enforcement target.
___________
¹ The CLB accurately predicted the State’s Transfer Petition.
Leave a Reply