Free Minds & Free Markets

Indiana Solicitor General: It's Constitutional to Seize a Car for Driving 5 MPH Over the Speed Limit

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer elicited a shocking response during Wednesday's oral argument in a big civil asset forfeiture case.

Olivier Douliery/SIPA/NewscomOlivier Douliery/SIPA/NewscomCivil asset forfeiture is such a farce that it took Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer only about 100 words to twist Indiana's solicitor general into admitting that his state could have the power to seize cars over something as insubstantial as driving 5 miles-per-hour over the speed limit.

Yes, really. But let's back up.

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Timbs v. Indiana, a case that could have huge ramifications for the way states and local governments use civil asset forfeiture to target the property of suspected criminals. As most Reason readers are probably aware, asset forfeiture is the process by which law enforcement can seize cars, cash, homes, and pretty much anything else that is suspected of being used to commit a crime or believed to be the proceeds of a crime. Often, suspects do not have to be convicted of anything—sometimes they aren't even charged—before they can be deprived of their property. To top it all off, law enforcement often has a perverse incentive to engage in this sort of thing because the proceeds of forfeiture can get plugged directly into their own budgets.

Tyson Timbs, the plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court, was arrested in 2015 after selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pleaded guilty to one count of dealing a controlled substance and one count of conspiracy to commit theft, and he was sentenced to one year of house arrest followed by five years of probation. Additionally, the state of Indiana seized his 2012 Land Rover—which he had purchased with money received from his late father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales—on the ground that it had been used to commit a crime.

At the Supreme Court, Timbs' attorneys are arguing that the seizure of the Land Rover is an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines and fees.

"The Excessive Fines Clause is a critical check on the government's power to punish people and take their property," is how Wesley Hottot, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which is representing Timbs, describes the case. "Without it, state and local law enforcement could confiscate everything a person owns based on a minor crime or—using civil forfeiture—no crime at all."

Indeed, that's one of the issues that came up during Wednesday's oral arguments. After Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Elena Kagan (and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh) had already slapped Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher around a little bit, Justice Stephen Breyer stepped up to deliver the coup de grace to the government's argument that unlimited asset forfeiture is constitutional.

Here's how he set the trap:

Breyer is literally mocking the government's position, but Fisher has to play along with the line of argument. First, Fisher tries to deflect the issue by claiming that a car caught in the act of speeding and a car caught in the act of carrying drugs are two different things. But Breyer blocks that escape and forces Fisher to address the question.

He doesn't handle it well.

And there it is. Defending civil asset forfeiture means defending the government's power to seize your car if you were going 5 miles-per-hour over the speed limit.

Thankfully, it seems like none of the nine justices were willing to buy Indiana's argument (and more than a few were willing to openly laugh it, based on the transcript). But the exchange between Breyer and Fisher shows just how absurd the government's asset forfeiture powers are—and why the outcome of the Timbs case could be so significant.

With both the court's left and right wings making a mockery of Fisher's argument, the big question after Wednesday's oral argument is not whether Timbs will prevail at the Supreme Court, but how far the justices may be willing to go in restricting forfeiture under the 8th Amendment.

For more on Timbs v. Indiana, check out what Jacob Sullum and Damon Root have written.

Photo Credit: Olivier Douliery/SIPA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    After Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Elena Kagan had already slapped Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher around a little bit...

    I thought it was Gorsuch and Sotomayor.

    How would you like to be the solicitor general who ruined theft by law enforcement for everyone?

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Kagan/Sotomayor... hard to keep the wise minority judges straight.

  • Dalben||

    I'd be proud of it, but I imagine most solicitor generals would not be.

    Also, I'd probably have to drive very carefully within the speed limit from then on.

  • Malvolio||

    "You know, Mr. Fisher, normally, I don't stop drivers who are only going 5mph over the limit, but my sergeant emphasized the importance of avoiding the appearance of favoritism. We are going to have to seize your car."

  • Dalben||

    I'd be proud of it, but I imagine most solicitor generals would not be.

    Also, I'd probably have to drive very carefully within the speed limit from then on.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Hopefully the judges get the ball rolling to put an end to CAF.

  • Juice||

    Why doesn't the line of questioning at all address due process? It seems to hang on the severity of the suspected "crime" to determine forfeitability.

  • Anomalous||

    Was due process an issue in this case? Or was it only the excessive fine?

  • Juice||

    The guy was convicted of a "crime" but I don't think the forfeiture was part of his sentence. It was just seized "civilly", so yes, the 5th amendment was violated (IMO).

  • Calidissident||

    Since it's being challenged under the "excessive fines" clause I suppose that's why there's so much focus on the severity of the offense and the proportional response. Essentially, they can argue under this clause that it's illegitimate here regardless of if there's a conviction.

    But I do agree with your point. There's no constitutional grounds for the government to force citizens to forfeit property as punishment for a crime they haven't been convicted of.

  • MJBinAL||

    I believe that "excessive fines" CAF, if found unconstitutional, will quickly extend to CAF without a crime as well. It will not take much to find that any CAF is an excessive fine without a conviction. In other words, if CAF is determined to be a fine by the SC, then it will always be excessive if there is no crime.

  • Merl3noir||

    We are only seeing a small sample of the questioning, so that is not to say it will not be brought up. That said often the Supreme Court is only called upon to rule on small parts of a larger case.

  • Juice||

    *reads some of the transcript*

    Dammit, this is a 5th amendment case, not an 8th amendment case!

    Just goes to show that IANAL.

  • Anomalous||

    I'm hoping for 9-0 to put an end to this corruption.

  • Juice||

    Alito? No way.

  • Juice||

    Shit, and I forgot about the Kav man.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It didn't sound like Roberts was totally on board, either.

  • Juice||

    Now that I'm reading the thing, yeah. He sounds like he's ok with punishing people without trial.

    ROBERTS: I mean the action is not against the individual. It's against the asset. And so you will lose assets that you use in crime.

    MR. HOTTOT: Well, that -­

    ROBERTS: The first one sounds, yeah, that's pretty excessive. The second one, you can certainly argue, well, that makes a lot of sense.

    Yeah, Mr. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, that makes sense IF the assets were seized as part of the sentence after being found guilty in court. Otherwise, it's unconstitutional. But they don't teach that in Chief Justice School.

  • Shirley Knott||

    How on earth is taking assets, which by definition belong to a person, not an action against the person?
    Roberts even has to describe the item twice as property and yet says it makes sense because the act is against the property, not the person.

  • Juice||

    Yes, "in rem" jurisdiction is bullshit.

  • Juice||

    the action is not against the individual...

    See. Nothing was done to you.

    you will lose assets

    Wait? What?

  • Mickey Rat||

    That asset is a hardened criminal, it is not safe for you to have it in your possession. Trust us, we are doing you a favor by taking it off your hands.

  • ||

    So then, logically, the asset should be imprisoned or destroyed, to be sure that it can no longer participate in criminal enterprises... Not just added to the Chief's exotic car collection...

  • Mickey Rat||

    Mr Chief Justice, without a conviction that makes no sense whatsoever.

  • Malvolio||

    If the government is allowed to say, "The action is not against you, it's against you asset", I should be allowed to say, "I didn't kill him, the bullet killed him."

  • Dillinger||

    does Roberts know whether Roberts is on board?

  • MJBinAL||

    Roberts nomination to the court has been demonstrated as a serious mistake before now. My expectations are pretty low .... as I consider Roberts to be ... low.

  • Cranedoc||

    So far both of Trump's nominees have shown remarkable insight and wisdom in deciding cases. Gorsuch has proven himself to be an independent, siding with Liberal judges as often as conservative ones. Kavanaugh seems committed to correctly interpreting the law and constitution to the neglect of any political considerations.
    Roberts is proving himself to be an inept joke who has no grasp of the legal system. This is unsurprising as he was a pure political appointment without even a law degree.

  • retiredfire||

    No big fan of Roberts, but, from Wiki:
    He attended Harvard Law School, where he was a managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated in 1979 with a J.D. magna cum laude.

  • dangfitz||

    Yeah, hopefully there are 5 or more Supremes with a more functional nervous system and spine than Roberts.

  • Calidissident||

    Since this case is being challenged under the Excessive Fines clause, it won't put an end to civil forfeiture, but it can help limit and rein it in. To end it altogether one would have to make a due process challenge that would limit it to at most instances where there's a conviction.

    The upside is that an excessive fines challenge like this also helps for cases where there is a conviction but the forfeiture is disproportionate or totally unjust.

  • Juice||

    Since this case is being challenged under the Excessive Fines clause, it won't put an end to civil forfeiture, but it can help limit and rein it in.

    After reading more of the transcript, I'm convinced that it won't. This case fucking sucks for the purposes of reforming asset forfeiture, which it will not do. At best, the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment will be incorporated. Whoop de do. It won't slow down asset forfeiture at all, but it will give a person one additional small avenue with which to maybe get their stuff back after paying lawyers for years of appeals.

  • Calidissident||

    It can limit what states can take and for what offenses. That's not nothing, even if it doesn't go nearly far enough. SCOTUS needs to hear another case directly challenging it on due process grounds to really kill it.

  • Juice||

    It can limit what states can take and for what offenses.

    IANAL, so maybe I'm not reading it right, but the way it sounded to me the question is whether "in rem" forfeiture conducted by a state is subject to the excessive fines clause. To determine this, the court first has to determine whether "in rem" forfeiture is considered to be a punishment. Why would it ever be a punishment? Are you punishing the property? Oh, you're punishing a person? Then how is it "in rem" and not "in personam"?

    I think the best thing that will happen is that there will be a very narrow window through which a person could argue in an expensive appeal that the forfeiture was excessive. So it won't really limit what the state can take. It may limit what they can keep after years of appeals.

    SCOTUS needs to hear another case directly challenging it on due process grounds to really kill it.

    But they wouldn't kill it though. I highly doubt they'll determine that "in rem" forfeiture is altogether unconstitutional.

  • Calidissident||

    I think Thomas, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor would. Need 1 or 2 more, Breyer might be on board, and the only ones of the others who would shock me by not supporting it would be Alito and Roberts.

  • dangfitz||

    I'd be amazed to see Breyer find a power exercised by government to be unconstitutional. Five bucks says he files a seperate concurrence or dissent justifying the seizures as "regulatory".

  • Alsø alsø wik||

    This. I think this case has import than it might at first sight. In order for the 8th to apply you first have to stipulate that it's a fine. And for it to be considered a fine would necessarily mean that it was property. Once that's the base from which you prosecute then the absurd logic of prosecuting property when the owner of the property is known collapses upon itself.

    This might be a really sly method for killing in rem entirely, except of course in the rare cases where there really is abandoned contraband.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The original justification for in rem cases way back when, had nothing to do with the owner being unknown. Rather the justification was the the owner was beyond the reach/jurisdiction of US law. In other words, the owner is a foreign national residing outside the US.

  • retiredfire||

    I am not sanguine about getting a good ruling on due process from a group that has routinely used the ridiculous "substantive due process" as reasoning for some of its more outlandish rulings.
    If due process can be "substantive" it has no meaning at all.
    When a qualifier has to be placed in front of a normally understood term, it generally means "not".
    eg: Politically correct.

  • MJBinAL||

    I believe that "excessive fines" CAF, if found unconstitutional, will quickly extend to CAF without a crime as well. If they overturn this, it will punch a hole in that "punishing the property not the citizen" shit. Once that is done and CAF is determined to be a fine by the SC, then it will always be excessive if there is no crime.

  • creech||

    Maybe the Solicitor General and all the judges who ruled for him on the way up to the Supreme Court level should have all their assets seized? Might be unusual but certainly not cruel punishment.

  • Qsl||

    I think you could make the case of prosecuting police departments under the RICO statutes and confiscating squad cars and staplers.

    Let the city sue to get the property back. Now that would be an interesting case.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Maybe make anyone who is involved with a forfeiture action personally liable to pay the money back if the action is found to be invalid.

    In addition, the agency itself would have to pay some multiple of the amount to the wronged person.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Just remember, Obamacare won after a very embarrassing Q&A with Obama's lawyer.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Embarrassing for whom? The justices who ruled on both sides on the not a tax fence?

  • Calidissident||

    If Breyer is on board, that's good news. I already knew Thomas, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor were reliable on this issue. That means just one of the other 5 is needed. Hopefully Ginsburg and Kagan would join their liberal colleagues, Kagan seems the most likely to me to go against (I believe the article has her mixed up with Sotomayor). I'm not confident about Alito and Roberts's quote in Juice's comment isn't encouraging. I could see Kavanaugh going either way, his history of being deferential to the government in matters of security and law enforcement makes him a question mark, but hopefully he could be swayed by Gorsuch and Thomas's arguments.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    government in matters of security and law enforcement makes him a question mark

    Perhaps his recent travails at the hands of an inquisition might have softened him up.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I got a feeling Gorsuch and Sotomayor will be voting a lot together.

  • Dalben||

    Yeah. Even if it's a real crime. Say I'm a burglar and drive to houses in my car and then store stolen goods in my house.

    I should go to jail, return the stolen goods, pay restitution, but should my house and car be seized just because I put stolen goods in them. What about my clothes. I wouldn't get very far burglarizing naked, can the state take the shirt off my back. And say my partner in crime rents an apartment and doesn't have a car. Is it fair that I pay a larger financial penalty than him for the exact same crime?

  • The Last American Hero||

    It's hard to leave shoe prints or clothing fibers behind if you are naked.

  • Rogers1234||

    But you can leave footprints behind

  • MJBinAL||

    Or, as they have done in some places, how about taking the apartment building you rented an apartment in.

  • Jerryskids||

    To be fair the case is coming out of Indiana, where the state supreme court ruled citizens have no right to resist law enforcement officers even when the law enforcement officers in question are committing a criminal act. Indiana has some strange ideas about how the law ought to work.

  • Juice||

    In line with the subject of this post, the solicitor general lays it out plainly at the beginning of his argument.

    Now the right being claimed here is a right of proportionality as to in rem forfeitures. The Court has to grapple with that history, which is really not seriously contested that that was never subject to proportionality -­

    So we can take your stuff without due process, and oh yeah, we can take it all and then some no matter what we say you did to deserve it even if you didn't actually do anything.

  • Juice||

    On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Timbs v. Indiana, a case that could have huge ramifications for the way states and local governments use civil asset forfeiture to target the property of suspected criminals.

    Not really. If the case goes the right way, states will have to determine whether an "in rem" forfeiture (an action against an asset, not a person) is excessive or not. So, I think that means it will have to be spelled out in law, which will codify (and solidify) the practice further.

    And how could an action against a piece of property ever be considered excessive? The property itself has no rights.

    If "in rem" really is a separate jurisdiction from "in personam" then it will never matter what the person considers to be an excessive loss of property since the judicial action is not considered to be against them, but against some thing.

    I think this shows how fucking absurd the whole concept of "in rem" jurisdiction is in the first place.

  • Alsø alsø wik||

    I posted just upthread on this, but this conundrum is what might make the ruling very broad. For the 8th to apply, it means whatever was seized is necessarily property. It's possibly an underhanded way of nullifying the whole concept of "in rem".

  • Bowerick Wowbagger||

    This case really should be 9 - 0

  • The Last American Hero||

    Most of them should be 9-0, since most of the stuff going before them is unconstitutional or the constitution is silent on the issue.

  • Phos||

    In regards to the constitutionality of an action, one would hope so.

    The Supremes also act as an appellate court. Remember the whole judging the constitutionality of laws things is a self created add on.

  • crufus||

    This will be resolved only when lawmakers get on board and outlaw civil asset forfeiture.

  • Eddy||

    So, about a week from never?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Third Tuesday after the fourth full moon after the 5th of never.

  • Barry soetaro||

    The forfeiture laws came into being because of crooked judges, along with others, allowing the cocaine traffickers to escape. They'd cut loose a million dollar bond and run, or outright bribe law enforcement or judges. A couple of major cities were built with drug money.
    It was effective, but then the law enforcement agencies got greedy. They began to steal in order to finance their departments. It was crooked, and justified by saying they were underfunded. Entire cities allowed themselves to go down that toilet.
    A better way has to be found to break drugs, including extreme penalties for users, dealers and importers. The culture must change, or nothing will help.

  • Eddy||

    "A couple of major cities were built with drug money."

    Not coincidentally, they're the same cities that they built on rock and roll.

  • Griffin3||

    Or, of course, legalize the drugs, and let the consequences lie on the individual.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    You are completely backwards on drug use, which should be unrestricted.

  • retiredfire||

    I think CAF actions, and their companion "excessive cash transaction prohibitions", came about because most drug crimes are victimless and they wanted to come up with a way to extra-judicially punish "violators", without having to wait until someone made a complaint. The law enforcers knew they had done it, but just couldn't prove it, so they did the next best thing and took their shit. It was judges, handling things "on appeal" who made it OK, because they are part of the government, that benefited from this. They never let juries decide appeals.
    Then, it expanded to all sorts of crimes that are simply hard to prove to the point of a conviction. They still get to punish "criminals", and it makes law enforcement money, outside of normal budgeting, that politicians would rather spend on vote buying.
    If a few non-criminals were also wrapped up in it, well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

  • Conchfritters||

    ...a special Ferrari, or even a jalopy?

    Hey grandpa judge!! I drive a jalopy! Go fuck yourself!

  • D-Pizzle||

    I think the actual legal term for such a vehicle is "clunker."

  • Mock-star||

    Breyer just now discovers that all laws, no matter how minor they may seem, are backed by violence.

  • Curly4||

    The civil asset forfeit may be a good law but any assets seized should be held and returned to defendant if the defendant is not convicted or the assets were not acquired by the use of funds generated by the criminal activity.
    This would keep the states and the federal agencies honest.

  • Bubba Jones||

    No. It. Isn't.

    Assets seized are not available to fund an adequate defense.

    Fuck. Off. Slaver.

  • Earth Skeptic||


  • Rich||

    "I mean the action is not against the individual. It's against the asset. And so you will lose assets that you use in crime."

    "Bailiff, lobotom, I mean, seize this criminal's mind."

  • ||

    This sort of thing makes me wonder -- how nice a car does the Solicitor General drive, and has he ever violated a speed limit?

  • Alsø alsø wik||

    Breyer would have learned his lesson sooner if, after his shameful Kelo vote, residents of his NH town had eminent domained his house (as some were proposing).

  • D-Pizzle||

    You're confusing Breyer with Souter (thanks GHWB), but yes, that would have been best. Also, that ass Kennedy (good riddance) was the "conservative" who sided with the majority.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Money is fungible. It is impossible to differentiate assets purchased with drug money from assets purchased with an inheritance.

  • MJBinAL||

    If the funds and the purchases were coincident, that is, within the same time period. Based on the description of the case, the automobile signficantly preceeded the alleged crimes, and specifically coincided with the inheritance.

    In this case, it would seem clear that the auto was not purchased with drug money.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Bubba Jones|11.28.18 @ 9:08PM|#

    "Money is fungible. It is impossible to differentiate assets purchased with drug money from assets purchased with an inheritance."

    Yes, and that's just the way the fascists like it.

  • ChrisBowen||

    first that is not entirely true. If the person was found guilty of breaking the law once, selling the heroin to the officer as per this case, then how could he have used any proceeds of the crime to finance the vehicle? If he was found guilty of selling in the past maybe, but then shouldnt he only be liable for the amounts the crimes netted him and the rest of the money returned after the sell of the vehicle for fair market value?

    The most that should be done before a conviction is money and assets be held in trust, only using able for basic needs and a defense. If found innocent release the assets, if found guilty make a play for the assets for an amount you can prove was gained, and if that amount is greater than he has and he used the money for a defense make a judgement against him for that amount.

  • Ordinary Person||

    If they can make you a slave for growing a plant then they can do anything.

  • Robert||

    If the property commits a crime, how does the sovereign's taking ownership of it expiate its guilt? Seems it'd have to be destroyed, not seized. Make that the rule, you take away the incentive to proceed in rem.

  • DenverJ||

    You know who else arrested people and then took all their valuables?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Robin Hood?

  • CE||

    Yet the Court will still side with governments taking stuff absent a conviction and out of proportion to the crime, no doubt.

  • CGN||

    What are we waiting for, people?!!? It is WAY past the time to cut ALL governmental power at ALL levels! You're going to take my car for going 5 mph over the speed limit? Try it, and you'll wish to God you never existed, you piece of shit pols.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "What are we waiting for, people?!!?"

    A more intelligent species to replace humans.

  • AlmightyJB||

    If I were a cop in Indiana, I know who's car I would be tailing looking for any infraction.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's a "tax" so ok. / Roberts.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Okay boys and girls, can you say malicious link? I knew you could.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Seems like the Supremes deliberately picked a case that will allow a narrow ruling and leave the bulk of the asset forfeiture machinery in place.

  • TxJack 112||

    What this case demonstrates is how state and local governments have used the laws to profit and raise money for their use. They use loopholes and broad interpretations to seize assets to sell or be used by the departments. Clearly in this case, the seizure of the vehicle was illegal since it was not purchased as by money from the sale of drugs. The law says assets associated with criminal activity can be seized which is why the police claimed the vehicle was USED when he was selling drugs. The solicitor general is insane if he thinks government can seize a vehicle for speeding which is the very definition of excessive bail and fines. There are countless cases of state and local governments seizing the assets of people claiming they are crime related and yet never actually charging the person with a crime. They lack the evidence needed for criminal prosecution but since the threshold is lower for asset forfeiture, they seize the person's property. In addition, even with exonerated, it takes people years to regain property seized by law enforcement. This case will hopefully put an end to a practice that has gotten totally out of control.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Once again, IJ leads the way!

    If libertarianism were a pennant race, Institute for Justice would be 20 games ahead in first place, with Reason struggling in the middle of the pack, and the ACLU in the basement, talking about moving the team to a new city.

  • ChrisBowen||

    The ACLU has led the way for more court cases than any other, including the institute for justice.

  • newshutz||

    Yeah and the Browns have won a lot of NFL championships.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Indiana Solicitor General: It's Constitutional to Seize a Car for Driving 5 MPH Over the Speed Limit"

    This was a bad example for the SG, because speeding generally involves fines and not criminal penalties.

    The discrepancy between the usual fine and the value of the car makes the forfeiture excessive as a fine.

    But in the case where criminal penalties are possible, he'd have a good case. Is the value of the car "excessive" relative to the value of liberty? Hard to argue. By hypothesis, the guy actually broke the law. That he was close to the threshold for that crime doesn't matter much. Some crimes involve thresholds. He was above that threshold, and clearly above it, by hypothesis.

    Unless you're challenging asset forfeiture *generally* on due process grounds, I wouldn't see the challenge for "excessive fines" on this case, which includes criminal penalties.

  • ChrisBowen||

    The guy broke the law, fessed up and got the lightest sentence possible, but the fine associated with it was 10k. The car was worth 42k. A private company, not the state, initiated the process and took most of the money for the vehicle. The car was worth more than 4x the fine associated with the conviction, and other than for transportation the vehicle was not used for the crime. There have been cases where houses have likewise been took because a child sold $40 worth of drugs.

  • operagost||

    I dunno... I guess we're going to have to come down to drug dealers' $250 kicks being seized because they were used to walk to the street corner.

  • Uncle Jay||

    The enlightened Indiana SG is quite correct.
    Indeed, why the little people have cars is a mystery to any well-indoctrinated person. They don't need cars. They can rent horses and buggies if local transportation is needed or even use boats on a canal. A stagecoach would be the wisest form of transportation for those long distance travel needs. Walking is good also since Americans are all overweight and are in dire need of exercise.
    Only our beloved ruling elitist socialist slavers should have cars, especially those cozy, comfortable and gas-saving limousines. They should also be afforded to fly in private jets for those long distance meetings on how to further suppress us all because after all, time is money, and our ruling elitist turds who oppress need all the money then can get, and if we're all really, really nice to them and kiss their ass properly, they might, just might, throw us, the unworthy filth who annoy and frustrate them, get a few crumbs to feed ourselves and our families.
    So quit whining about civil asset forfeiture and be grateful we live in a country where the government can steal our excess property with impunity.

  • EWM||

    If there was ever a victim in these cases, you might be able to justify forfeiture to serve as partial or full compensation.

  • rano del||

    Great information. I'm lucky to discover your website by chance, and I'm amazed why this twist of fate did not take place earlier! I saved it.

    Pengobatan sakit batu empedu
    Pengobatan kanker usus besar

  • Hank Phillips||

    Right now most States can take your home--you still pay the mortgage--for plant roots found by dogs. The economic collapse that follows widespread adoption of this looting could be offset by seizing jackbooted minion assets to pay off the TARP bailouts.

  • ToddP||

    This was pointless. Just pointless.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Wouldn't it be ironic if the Indiana's solicitor general was arrested for driving 6 MPH over the speed limit? We can only hope.

  • williamk03697||


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online