What is the big deal with Tyson Timbs’ Land Rover?

“The State of Indiana has spent the past seven years, one month, and eleven days trying to forfeit Tyson Timbs’ vehicle.” Samuel Gedge, Timbs’ appellate attorney, also noted in his most recent appellate brief that Timbs worked very hard to beat his addiction and reintegrate into society, but “the State has remained more interested in Timbs’ car.”

Normally I would disagree; there can be legitimate reasons to use a case to develop a particular body of law. But there have been numerous proceedings in Timbs’ case, from the trial court through the U.S. Supreme Court, that have developed the framework for evaluating whether a forfeiture is an “excessive fine” under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Indiana settled on a proportionality analysis, which the majority of jurisdictions use.

Nevertheless, the State is asking — again — for a different analysis. And it signaled to the Indiana Supreme Court during the State’s fourth oral argument in this case, which was held this morning, that it will likely be asking the High Court to again weigh in on the forfeiture of the Land Rover.

Perhaps most interesting of all, however, is that Timbs did not raise a State constitutional claim. Article 1, Section 16 of Indiana’s Constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive fines as well. Which means we could see the Court grappling with this issue again soon.