Brandon’s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Supreme Court. Cookies that tie into analytics systems, such as Google Analytics, YouTube and Vimeo analytics for embedded video, etc.
Many groups filed amicus briefs in Timbs v. Indiana because the issue of asset forfeiture and excessive fines concerns the potential overreach of state and local governments in the way that they prosecute crimes. By 1787, eight of the states had an excessive fines prohibition in their state constitutions and by the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, 35 of 37 states included the protection. Although it involved a civil asset forfeiture of a vehicle arising from the petitioner’s criminal conviction, the decision could provide a new weapon for consumer financial services providers facing fines and penalties sought by State attorneys general and regulators. Prohibition Against Excessive Fines and Bails. The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.It also prohibits states from imposing cruel and unusual punishment, and, as of 2019, excessive fines. Federal Halfway House – A Brief Overview The BOP has long…, The First Step Act 2018 Bill Summary: On December 21, 2018, the President signed into law The First Step Act 2018, a bipartisan effort to reform the federal criminal justice system. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Timbs v. Indiana about whether the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines has been incorporated against the states per the Fourteenth Amendment. Eric Boehm | … The Court did not address when a fine is impermissibly “excessive” under the Eighth Amendment. Asset Forfeitures Analyzed as Excessive Fines It should be noted, as the Supreme Court did in its opinion, that “all 50 states have a constitutional provision prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines either directly or by requiring proportionality.” While such state provisions would be available to a consumer financial services provider, they might not be interpreted in a manner that is as protective as the Eighth Amendment prohibition. Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Timbs v.Indiana that the prohibition on excessive fines in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. The principle of proportionality is key in determining whether a fine is excessive. In Timbs v. Indiana, the defendant purchased a vehicle for $42,000 using the payout from his father's life insurance. Under 18 U.S.C. However, the court may order that assets be turned back over to the defendant at sentencing. The opinion imposes a new constitutional constraint on more than thirty States that have not already incorporated the Excessive Fines Clause (e.g., Michigan, New York, and Virginia), limiting their ability to levy fines and forfeitures, which are often key sources of revenue for state and local governments. It noted, however, that the lineage of the Excessive Fines Clause traces back to the Magna Carta, which generally required economic sanctions to be proportionate to the underlying wrong. The government can seize a defendant's assets that are alleged to have been involved in his criminal activities.
The Indiana Supreme Court also noted that there are not any Supreme Court cases clearly deciding this issue. Does the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause apply to the States? These cookies don’t collect information that identifies a visitor. Since the Supreme Court did not reach the question of whether the forfeiture resulted in an excessive fine that violated the Eighth Amendment, the decision does not discuss the standards for determining whether a particular fine is unconstitutionally excessive. Please correct the marked field(s) below. The outcome of Timbs v. Indiana will have a major impact on how asset forfeiture actions will be treated at the state level. If you or a loved one are involved in a criminal prosecution in which asset forfeiture may be a result of the proceedings, then this pending case is one that should be followed closely. All rights reserved. The Consumer Financial Services Group is nationally recognized for its guidance in structuring and documenting new consumer financial services products, its experience with the full range of federal and state consumer credit laws throughout the country, and its skill in litigation defense and avoidance, including pioneering work in pre-dispute arbitration programs. These cookies do not store any personal information. The Court ruled that the Constitution’s prohibition of excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose fines and seize property for forfeiture. The Indiana Supreme Court … He used the vehicle to transport heroin across Indiana. By continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies as set forth in our. What is going on? Court’s Holding: Thus, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that only federal asset forfeiture actions are subject to the confines of the Eighth Amendment. Sentencing Commission for federal prison and sentencing reform. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. Here’s a summary of some of the highlights. ©Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 2020. If the Supreme Court rules that the states are bound by the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines, then there may be a large opening to challenge the constitutionality of the value of the asset seizure during sentencing. All Rights Reserved. I. The story: Tyson Timbs was … The state appellate court affirmed, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s decision now gives providers a potential second line of attack when facing fines and penalties sought by State attorneys general and regulators. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. Asset forfeitures have become a common tactic used by the federal government in investigating and prosecuting drug crimes. The trial court denied the request, reasoning that forfeiture of the vehicle would be grossly disproportionate to Timbs’s offense, and thus impermissible under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, because Timbs had recently purchased the vehicle for $42,000—far more than the maximum $10,000 fine assessable against him for the drug conviction.
It is only used to improve how a website works. The Supreme Court held that a fine violates the Eighth Amendment if it is "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense.". Please feel free to contact the following practice leaders: Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice, Related Practices: Anti-Money Laundering, Forfeiture, White Collar Defense, and Investigations. The opinion gives defendants in suits brought by state and local governments a potential new defense to excessive fines and penalties. If state and local governments are left unchecked in their seizure of assets from private citizens, they may have an incentive to only prosecute those crimes that result in the most financial gain to the government. The Excessive Fines Clause is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010), and therefore applies to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. SCOTUS ruling that Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines prohibition applies to states could provide new weapon to consumer financial services providers, NYDFS brings first action to enforce state’s debt collection regulation, California Dept. This site has been approved by Attorney Brandon Sample. Duncan argued that the forfeiture order requested by the government violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines. He was caught in a transaction with a criminal informant and was arrested. This is especially true if the value of the assets seized is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense at issue. “[T]he historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming.”, Justice Ginsburg, writing for the unanimous Court. (a) Congress – Sentencing Reform Different bills remain under consideration, but none have yet…. The Supreme Court case of United States v. Bajakajian established some of the outer bounds of what is considered an excessive fine in federal cases. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies.
The government argued that the defendant should have to forfeit the vehicle he used to transport the drugs. A variety of things, it seems. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. He accepted a plea deal and was sentenced to serve six years in prison with all but one year suspended. The following are the cookies installed by the service: _ga, _gid, collect, vuid, These cookies collect information about how visitors use a website, for instance which pages visitors go to most often, and if they get error messages from web pages. The following cookie is installed by the Google Analytics service: _gat, This website uses cookies to provide analytics on user traffic. In that decision, the Court wrote that the phrase “nor excessive fines imposed” in the Eighth Amendment prohibition “limits the government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, ‘as punishment for some offense.’”. (Perhaps that is the reason that the petitioner in Timbs did not challenge the forfeiture under the Indiana Constitution.) The Standards. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. Yes. The Law Office of Brandon Sample has assembled this detailed analysis of the First Step Act 2018 to help the public understand the ins…, We are a week into 2018 and there is much buzz about what lies ahead in the year from the courts, Congress, and the U.S. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to only the federal government, not the States. What's at stake: Does the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "excessive fines" apply to the states as well as the federal government? The maximum amount that the defendant could have been fined for his offenses was $10,000, and the value of the vehicle was more than four times that amount. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. © 2020 Brandon Sample PLC. This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. One of the ways that defendants challenge the government's seizure of their assets is by arguing that they are essentially a form of "excessive fine," which is banned by the Eighth Amendment. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. Our principal office is located in Rutland, VT. Over the past several weeks, I have received numerous e-mails and calls from different individuals concerning federal halfway house placements that have been reduced significantly—or denied entirely—by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).