About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

14 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y Sidebar 1 (2019)

handle is hein.journals/dukjppsid14 and id is 1 raw text is: 










                TIMBS V. INDIANA:
        THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
            OF CIVIL FORFEITURE
          WHEN USED BY STATES

                       KRIS FERNANDEZ*


                         INTRODUCTION
   Civil forfeiture, the seizure of property associated with the
commission  of a crime, has long been used as a tool by Congress.' In
theory, forfeiture should help deter crime and dismantle criminal
organizations by attacking their financial assets. However, some
criticize the seizure of valuable assets from those who have not
committed  serious crimes.2 In Timbs v. Indiana, Petitioner Tyson
Timbs  asks the Supreme  Court to incorporate the Excessive Fines
Clause of the Eighth Amendment   against the states, providing extra
protection for individuals against fines and forfeiture that are grossly
disproportionate to the harm caused.3 The decision to incorporate
the Excessive Fines  Clause and  the guidelines for applying that
incorporation would have a substantial effect on governments, which
often rely on the revenue gained from forfeiture.
   This commentary   argues that the Supreme Court of the United
States should incorporate the  Excessive Fines Clause  based  on
historical support of an individual's right to be free from excessive
fines. Further, the Supreme Court should reaffirm its guidelines as
described in Bajakajian, which weigh the harm caused, the maximum
fines that could be levied against the defendant, and whether or not
the defendant is meant to be targeted by the statute. These guidelines

Copyright 02019 Kris Fernandez.
*J.D. Candidate, Duke University School of Law, Class of 2020.
    1. Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 613 (1993).
    2. Brief of Amicus Curiae Foundation for Moral Law in Support of Petitioners at 15-16,
Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091 (Sept. 11, 2018).
   3. Brief for Petitioners at 7, Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091 (Sept. 4, 2018) [hereinafter
Brief for Petitioner].
   4. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 337-39 (1998).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most