7 ms·

And why is it a good thing that they didn't rule on the other merits of the case, such as clarifying that a confiscation of a $45000 car is "excessive" for a cr

And why is it a good thing that they didn't rule on the other merits of the case, such as clarifying that a confiscation of a $45000 car is "excessive" for a crime with a maximum fine of $1200?

TheGRS 8y ago
Probably because what constitutes excessive is going to be a fairly arbitrary and subjective amount at any point in time and depending on the person in the case. I don't think that's what's really the meat of the argument. The 8th amendment not applying to states however is a huge deal as its a pretty clear violation of the 14th amendment and its broader intentions.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sathackr 8y ago
IANAL, which should be evident, but.. The lower courts already felt the fine was excessive, but declined to rule so because they felt they were not subject to the 8th amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that they were in fact subject to the 8th amendment, and sent the case back to the State court to re-evaluate under the new guidance. The Supreme court generally tries to rule as precisely and efficiently as possible. Since the most prominent question under their jurisdiction was the application of the 8th amendment to the states, they ruled on that issue and remanded for the remainder of the case to be resolved by the lower case with the 8th amendment applied. Now the lower court, which is a perfectly capable entity, will rule on the case, applying the 8th amendment as directed by the Supreme Court. If the lower court then rules the fine was not excessive, that ruling as well would be subject to review by the higher court. But it was not necessary at this time for the Supreme Court to rule on this as the ruling on the 8th amendment will permit the lower court to do it's job and re-evaluate.
cryptonector 8y ago
It's standard operating procedure for the court. They usually make the narrowest possible decisions, only in cases they felt they had to take (usually because of disagreements below, sometimes due to time considerations), and remand to lower courts to work out details left undecided. In this case the holding leaves very little room for the lower courts to make any decision other than that the $45k property or equivalent value must be restored to the plaintiff. I suppose Indiana might want to take the $8800 between the $1200 and the max fine ($10k), but that would invite further pointless expense and embarrassment by having their rulings overturned by Federal courts, so I would bet the plaintiff gets the $45k back. I suppose the plaintiff may want interest too, but there's not enough value in that for them, but the State will surely fight that tooth an nail, especially if the courts decide that all (or many) civil asset forfeiture cases are now to open to being revisited, as the States (or their cities) will be on the hook for enormous amounts of money, and interest on that will be a lot too.

And why is it a good thing that they didn't rule on the other merits of the case, such as clarifying that a confiscation of a $45000 car is "excessive" for a crime with a maximum fine of $1200?

TheGRS 8y ago

Probably because what constitutes excessive is going to be a fairly arbitrary and subjective amount at any point in time and depending on the person in the case. I don't think that's what's really the meat of the argument. The 8th amendment not applying to states however is a huge deal as its a pretty clear violation of the 14th amendment and its broader intentions.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sathackr 8y ago

IANAL, which should be evident, but.. The lower courts already felt the fine was excessive, but declined to rule so because they felt they were not subject to the 8th amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that they were in fact subject to the 8th amendment, and sent the case back to the State court to re-evaluate under the new guidance. The Supreme court generally tries to rule as precisely and efficiently as possible. Since the most prominent question under their jurisdiction was the application of the 8th amendment to the states, they ruled on that issue and remanded for the remainder of the case to be resolved by the lower case with the 8th amendment applied. Now the lower court, which is a perfectly capable entity, will rule on the case, applying the 8th amendment as directed by the Supreme Court. If the lower court then rules the fine was not excessive, that ruling as well would be subject to review by the higher court. But it was not necessary at this time for the Supreme Court to rule on this as the ruling on the 8th amendment will permit the lower court to do it's job and re-evaluate.

cryptonector 8y ago

It's standard operating procedure for the court. They usually make the narrowest possible decisions, only in cases they felt they had to take (usually because of disagreements below, sometimes due to time considerations), and remand to lower courts to work out details left undecided. In this case the holding leaves very little room for the lower courts to make any decision other than that the $45k property or equivalent value must be restored to the plaintiff. I suppose Indiana might want to take the $8800 between the $1200 and the max fine ($10k), but that would invite further pointless expense and embarrassment by having their rulings overturned by Federal courts, so I would bet the plaintiff gets the $45k back. I suppose the plaintiff may want interest too, but there's not enough value in that for them, but the State will surely fight that tooth an nail, especially if the courts decide that all (or many) civil asset forfeiture cases are now to open to being revisited, as the States (or their cities) will be on the hook for enormous amounts of money, and interest on that will be a lot too.