Source: https://citiesspeak.org/2019/04/12/why-timbs-v-indiana-wont-have-much-impact/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:41:24+00:00

Document:
If the Supreme Court had ruled that the fine in this case was (or even wasn’t) excessive that would have been a much bigger deal. Remarkably, in only one case has the Supreme Court ever considered whether a fine was excessive.
In United States v. Bajakajian Hosep Bajakajian failed to comply with federal law requiring him to report that he was leaving the United States with more than $10,000. The federal government sought to forfeit the entire amount: $357,144.
United States v. Bajakajian involves an extreme case—an enormous forfeiture for a relatively minor offense. It provides little guidance on when a fine is excessive.
In contrast, the forfeiture in Timbs is smaller (a vehicle valued under $40,000) and the offense is more serious (drug dealing). And while the maximum monetary penalty for the single drug-dealing charge to which Timbs pled guilty is $10,000 that same maximum $10,000 fine also applies to murder in Indiana. In addition, Timbs confessed to using his vehicle to purchase heroin on many occasions. Given this mix of factors, the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision on remand will give Hoosiers more guidance on how it will apply the federal Excessive Fines Clause in future cases.
The Supreme Court will have another chance to tackle the question of what is a “fine” if it agrees to decide Lovelace v. Illinois. Lovelace was acquitted of all charges (including murder) but the court retained ten percent of his bond, above the direct costs of administering the bond, totaling $35,000. Lovelace argues the bond retention is a “fine” and that it is excessive in light of his exoneration. The lower court held that it is a “fee” and not a “fine.” So, the Excessive Fines Clause didn’t apply.
Undoubtedly, Timbs v. Indiana provides states and local governments a reminder to look at their assessments and determine whether they are “fines” and if so whether they are “excessive.” But what Timbs v. Indianadoesn’t do is offer any guidance on how to make either determination.
The real impact of Timbs v. Indiana may be that by agreeing to decide an excessive fines forfeiture case the High Court is signaling it is interested in all three related topics. Stay tuned to see if the Supreme Court grants the Lovelace petition.
Previous postIs Rent Control Available to Your City?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.