In oral examination, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer got the Indiana solictor general to admit that he believes it is constitutional for the police to seize someone’s car for driving five miles per hour over the speed limit.
Yep. Civil asset forfeiture has become such a boon for state law enforcement that its proponents are admitting to the U.S. Supreme Court that the application of the policy is nearly without limits.
On November 28, the case of Timbs v. Indiana was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for the practice of seizing the property of those suspected of criminal activity.
As is the case with the law of many states in the union, Indiana authorities may seize a suspect’s property, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the case against the accused. In the case being considered by the Supreme Court, a man’s property was seized and his life was shattered by Indiana law enforcement’s use of civil asset forfeiture against him.