The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision last week holding that civil asset forfeiture at the state and local level must occur under the same constitutional protections against excessive fines as they do at the federal level.
While decision does not prohibit civil asset forfeiture, it does mean that state and local governments may be open to more legal challenges in cases where assets are seized.
As reported in Route Fifty:
The decision in the case of Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover LR2 v. State of Indiana does not outlaw “civil asset forfeiture” or outline a formula for determining when fines might be too severe. But it does broaden the pathway for possible legal challenges in these areas.
In issuing the ruling the justices held that a clause in the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, protecting Americans against excessive fines, is “incorporated” against, or applies to, the states.
Read the full article in Route Fifty for more information.