Timbs v. Indiana (2019) - Revision history

Admin at 18:18, 16 November 2019

2019-11-16T18:18:12Z

Admin at 18:17, 16 November 2019

2019-11-16T18:17:53Z

Admin at 21:27, 10 May 2019

2019-05-10T21:27:18Z

Admin at 00:16, 16 March 2019

2019-03-16T00:16:54Z

Admin at 00:13, 16 March 2019

2019-03-16T00:13:03Z

Admin: Admin moved page Timbs v. Indiana to Timbs v. Indiana (2019) over redirect

2019-03-16T00:08:08Z

Admin moved page Timbs v. Indiana to Timbs v. Indiana (2019) over redirect

Admin: Admin moved page Timbs v. Indiana (2019) to Timbs v. Indiana

2019-03-15T23:39:38Z

Admin moved page Timbs v. Indiana (2019) to Timbs v. Indiana

Admin at 23:39, 15 March 2019

2019-03-15T23:39:20Z

Admin: Created page with "Timbs v. Indiana, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision, declared that the “excessive fines” provision of the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states, not just the..."

2019-03-08T01:22:24Z

Created page with "Timbs v. Indiana, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision, declared that the “excessive fines” provision of the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states, not just the..."

New page

Timbs v. Indiana, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision, declared that the “excessive fines” provision of the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states, not just the federal government, thus incorporating this Eighth Amendment protection into the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The case involved Indiana’s seizure under civil-forfeiture proceedings of Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he was driving when he was arrested and later convicted for selling $225 of illegal drugs. Among other penalties, he was fined $1,200. When Indiana refused to return his vehicle, Mr. Timbs filed suit, arguing that the state’s keeping of his vehicle was an excessive fine.

John Kincaid

Last updated: March 2019

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 16 November 2019
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Last Updated: November 2019		Last Updated: November 2019

−	SEE ALSO: [[Bill of Rights]]; [[Nationalization of the Bill of Rights]];	+	SEE ALSO: [[Bill of Rights]]; [[Nationalization of the Bill of Rights]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-''Timbs v. Indiana'' (2019), a unanimous [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision, declared that the “excessive fines” provision of the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states, not just the federal government, thus incorporating this Eighth Amendment protection into the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]]. The case involved Indiana’s seizure under civil-forfeiture proceedings of Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he was driving when he was arrested and later convicted for selling $225 of illegal drugs. Among other penalties, he was fined $1,200. When Indiana refused to return his vehicle, Mr. Timbs filed suit, arguing that the state’s keeping of his vehicle was an excessive fine.  The Court had ruled in 1993 (''Austin v. United States'') that the Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines applies to asset forfeitures by the federal government.
+In ''Timbs v. Indiana'' (2019), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies not only to the federal government but also to the states, thus limiting state and local government discretion via further [[Natinoalization of the U.S. Bill of Rights|incorporation of the U.S. Bill of Rights]].
 {| class="wikitable"
@@ Line 7: / Line 17: @@
 |}
-JOHN KINCAID
+Lance A. Cooper
-<br>Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner Professor of Government and Public Service
-Lafayette College
+Last Updated: November 2019
-Last Updated: March 2019
+SEE ALSO: [[Bill of Rights]]; [[Nationalization of the Bill of Rights]];

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 10 May 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	''Timbs v. Indiana'' (2019), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision, declared that the “excessive fines” provision of the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states, not just the federal government, thus incorporating this Eighth Amendment protection into the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The case involved Indiana’s seizure under civil-forfeiture proceedings of Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he was driving when he was arrested and later convicted for selling $225 of illegal drugs. Among other penalties, he was fined $1,200. When Indiana refused to return his vehicle, Mr. Timbs filed suit, arguing that the state’s keeping of his vehicle was an excessive fine. The Court had ruled in 1993 (''Austin v. United States'') that the Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines applies to asset forfeitures by the federal government.	+	''Timbs v. Indiana'' (2019), a unanimous [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision, declared that the “excessive fines” provision of the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states, not just the federal government, thus incorporating this Eighth Amendment protection into the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]]. The case involved Indiana’s seizure under civil-forfeiture proceedings of Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he was driving when he was arrested and later convicted for selling $225 of illegal drugs. Among other penalties, he was fined $1,200. When Indiana refused to return his vehicle, Mr. Timbs filed suit, arguing that the state’s keeping of his vehicle was an excessive fine. The Court had ruled in 1993 (''Austin v. United States'') that the Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines applies to asset forfeitures by the federal government.

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |-
 | '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
-Michael J. Duffy, “A Drug War Funded with Drug Money: The Federal Civil Forfeiture Statute and Federalism,” Suffolk University Law Review 34:3 (2001): 511-540; Victor E. Hartman, “Implementing an Asset Forfeiture Program,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 70:1 (2001): 1-7; Alice W. Dery, “Overview of Asset Forfeiture,” Business Law Today (June 2012): 1-5; Brent Skorup, “Ensuring Eighth Amendment Protection from Excessive Fines in Civil Asset Forfeiture Cases,” George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 22:3 (2012)): 427-458; Brent Ashley, “Uncivil Asset Forfeiture: An Analysis of Civil Asset Forfeiture and Virginia H.B 48,” Richmond Public Interest Law Review 20:3 (2017): 293-304; and Vanita Saleema Snow, “From the Dark Tower: Unbridled Civil Asset Forfeiture,” Drexel Law Review 10:1 (2017): 69-126.
+Michael J. Duffy, “A Drug War Funded with Drug Money: The Federal Civil Forfeiture Statute and Federalism,” ''Suffolk University Law Review'' 34:3 (2001): 511-540; Victor E. Hartman, “Implementing an Asset Forfeiture Program,” ''FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin'' 70:1 (2001): 1-7; Alice W. Dery, “Overview of Asset Forfeiture,” ''Business Law Today'' (June 2012): 1-5; Brent Skorup, “Ensuring Eighth Amendment Protection from Excessive Fines in Civil Asset Forfeiture Cases,” ''George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal'' 22:3 (2012)): 427-458; Brent Ashley, “Uncivil Asset Forfeiture: An Analysis of Civil Asset Forfeiture and Virginia H.B 48,” ''Richmond Public Interest Law Review'' 20:3 (2017): 293-304; and Vanita Saleema Snow, “From the Dark Tower: Unbridled Civil Asset Forfeiture,” ''Drexel Law Review'' 10:1 (2017): 69-126.
 |}

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:13, 16 March 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Timbs v. Indiana, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision, declared that the “excessive fines” provision of the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states, not just the federal government, thus incorporating this Eighth Amendment protection into the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The case involved Indiana’s seizure under civil-forfeiture proceedings of Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he was driving when he was arrested and later convicted for selling $225 of illegal drugs. Among other penalties, he was fined $1,200. When Indiana refused to return his vehicle, Mr. Timbs filed suit, arguing that the state’s keeping of his vehicle was an excessive fine. The Court had ruled in 1993 (Austin v. United States) that the Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines applies to asset forfeitures by the federal government.	+	''Timbs v. Indiana'' (2019), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision, declared that the “excessive fines” provision of the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states, not just the federal government, thus incorporating this Eighth Amendment protection into the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The case involved Indiana’s seizure under civil-forfeiture proceedings of Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he was driving when he was arrested and later convicted for selling $225 of illegal drugs. Among other penalties, he was fined $1,200. When Indiana refused to return his vehicle, Mr. Timbs filed suit, arguing that the state’s keeping of his vehicle was an excessive fine. The Court had ruled in 1993 (''Austin v. United States'') that the Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines applies to asset forfeitures by the federal government.

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:08, 16 March 2019
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 23:39, 15 March 2019
(No difference)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Timbs v. Indiana, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision, declared that the “excessive fines” provision of the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states, not just the federal government, thus incorporating this Eighth Amendment protection into the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The case involved Indiana’s seizure under civil-forfeiture proceedings of Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he was driving when he was arrested and later convicted for selling $225 of illegal drugs. Among other penalties, he was fined $1,200. When Indiana refused to return his vehicle, Mr. Timbs filed suit, arguing that the state’s keeping of his vehicle was an excessive fine.
+Timbs v. Indiana, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision, declared that the “excessive fines” provision of the Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states, not just the federal government, thus incorporating this Eighth Amendment protection into the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The case involved Indiana’s seizure under civil-forfeiture proceedings of Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he was driving when he was arrested and later convicted for selling $225 of illegal drugs. Among other penalties, he was fined $1,200. When Indiana refused to return his vehicle, Mr. Timbs filed suit, arguing that the state’s keeping of his vehicle was an excessive fine.  The Court had ruled in 1993 (Austin v. United States) that the Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines applies to asset forfeitures by the federal government.
-John Kincaid
+{| class="wikitable"
-Last updated: March 2019
+JOHN KINCAID