Indiana’s courts have recently taken significant strides to curb asset forfeiture abuse, an issue the legislative bodies have hesitated to address. Notably, an asset forfeiture case that began in Indiana’s Supreme Court found its way to the US Supreme Court, resulting in a landmark resolution that specific forfeitures constituted violations of constitutional protections against excessive fines.
In the cited case, Tyson Timbs had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after committing a crime tied to a maximum fine of $10,000, selling $260 worth of heroin to undercover police officers. Both courts ruled in favor of Timbs, affirming that such excessive forfeiture was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Details of this decision can be found here and here.
Additionally, another federal court ruling declared Indiana’s seizure of vehicles — for either real or alleged crimes — to be constitutional violations. This decision, linked here, addressed the deficiency in the process, which permitted law enforcement to delay proceeding with the forfeiture and denied property owners any attempt to reclaim their property until the government had completed its mandates.
Indiana’s forfeiture programs suffered another significant setback with an additional lawsuit dealing with civil asset forfeiture, a procedure that does not necessitate a government-secured conviction or even any definitive proof of the property owner’s involvement in criminal activity. More on this case is available from Gabriel Ogunjobi at Reason, linked here.
In this case, Alucious Kizer demanded a jury trial to evaluate the government’s claim that seized money was traceable to criminal activity. Initially, the trial court agreed with the state’s argument that legal forfeiture defenses did not require a jury. However, in a subsequent reversal, the court leaned on awarding defendants more rights and due process, including the right to a jury trial in civil forfeiture proceedings. Kizer, with the help of the Institute for Justice, triumphed in securing this legal victory, benefiting all Indiana citizens.
The Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion [PDF] stated that due process rights also apply to civil forfeitures, challenging the state’s argument that such forfeiture proceedings have always been purely administrative and hence, have never necessitated a jury.
Coming in sharp opposition to the state’s legal argument, the court agreed with Kizer’s argument, deeming that the state’s theory could deprive individuals of a jury trial when contesting any modern statutory scheme.
This alterations made by the state’s top court asserts the right to a jury trial in civil forfeitures, anchoring its decision on the Indiana Constitution. Said decision has enormous potential to impact Indiana’s forfeiture programs, although it does not prevent law enforcement from seizing property under claims of the property being tied to, or intended for criminal activity.
Curbing asset forfeiture abuse is crucial and such legal steps taken by the courts serve as landmarks towards more transparent legal proceedings. The full story is available here.