State of Indiana v. Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover LR2
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 389
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2013 Timbs bought a 2012 Land Rover for about $42,058 using life‑insurance proceeds; police later tied the vehicle to two controlled heroin sales Timbs participated in.
- The State filed criminal charges (two Class B dealing counts and a Class D conspiracy to commit theft); Timbs pleaded guilty to one Class B dealing count and one Class D theft count and received a sentence with community corrections/probation and various fees, but no criminal fine.
- The State separately filed a civil forfeiture complaint seeking the Land Rover; the trial court concluded forfeiture would be grossly disproportionate and violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause and ordered the vehicle returned.
- The State moved to correct error arguing the court should have ordered sale and retained a non‑excessive amount; the trial court denied the motion, and the State appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo whether the forfeiture constituted an excessive fine and affirmed the trial court, emphasizing (1) the vehicle’s value (~4× the statutory maximum monetary fine for a Class B felony) and (2) that the vehicle was purchased with lawful proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forfeiture of Timbs’s Land Rover violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause | Forfeiture is permissible to punish/further law‑enforcement goals; asset used to facilitate crime can be forfeited even without conviction | Forfeiture of an asset worth ≈4× the statutory maximum fine for the offense is grossly disproportional and therefore excessive | Affirmed: forfeiture would be grossly disproportional and violate the Excessive Fines Clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Serrano v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. 2011) (background on modern civil forfeiture and its reach)
- $100 and a Black Cadillac v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (forfeitures are subject to the Excessive Fines Clause)
- Bajakajian v. United States, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (excessive‑fines test: whether forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense)
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993) (civil forfeiture can be punitive and thus subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny)
- United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996) (discussion of the constitutionality and role of forfeiture in law enforcement)
- United States v. Aleff, 772 F.3d 508 (8th Cir. 2014) (example where large recovery under statutory damages was held not grossly disproportional given extensive scheme)