WEBVTT - The Land Rover Case That Changed the Eighth Amendment

0:00:10.119 --> 0:00:13.520
<v Speaker 1>And we return to our American stories. And now it's

0:00:13.600 --> 0:00:16.439
<v Speaker 1>time for another rule of law story, which is a

0:00:16.480 --> 0:00:19.560
<v Speaker 1>part of our rule of Law series, where we showcase

0:00:19.600 --> 0:00:22.959
<v Speaker 1>what happens in the absence and the presence of the

0:00:23.040 --> 0:00:26.680
<v Speaker 1>rule of law in our lives. Things like property rights

0:00:26.680 --> 0:00:30.440
<v Speaker 1>that we just take for granted courts and an independent judiciary,

0:00:30.800 --> 0:00:33.880
<v Speaker 1>separation of powers which gives meaning to that independence of

0:00:33.920 --> 0:00:38.440
<v Speaker 1>the judiciary, and contract rights, things that in other countries. Well,

0:00:38.520 --> 0:00:40.920
<v Speaker 1>good luck, and by the way, that rule of law

0:00:41.000 --> 0:00:45.120
<v Speaker 1>extends to all of us, good and bad and in between.

0:00:45.440 --> 0:00:47.400
<v Speaker 1>Here's our own Monty Montgomery with the story of a

0:00:47.400 --> 0:00:50.320
<v Speaker 1>man who violated what would seem to be a clear

0:00:50.479 --> 0:00:53.760
<v Speaker 1>cut law and the long winded case that he became

0:00:53.840 --> 0:01:00.440
<v Speaker 1>wrapped up in as a result.

0:01:00.680 --> 0:01:04.120
<v Speaker 2>In twenty twelve, Tyson Tims found himself on the receiving

0:01:04.240 --> 0:01:06.759
<v Speaker 2>end of a decent amount of cash following the death

0:01:06.760 --> 0:01:14.560
<v Speaker 2>of his father. He promptly bought a nice car and

0:01:14.640 --> 0:01:17.320
<v Speaker 2>a year later drove out to sell some drugs to

0:01:17.480 --> 0:01:24.200
<v Speaker 2>undercover cops. Here's Ilia Soman with the rest of the story.

0:01:24.640 --> 0:01:27.080
<v Speaker 3>So he was caught and he was charged with a

0:01:27.120 --> 0:01:30.320
<v Speaker 3>small scale drug offence. He admitted that he did commit

0:01:30.360 --> 0:01:34.160
<v Speaker 3>a crime. But when he drove to this transaction, he

0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:38.760
<v Speaker 3>was driving his land Rover SUV, which according to estimates,

0:01:38.840 --> 0:01:42.080
<v Speaker 3>was worth something like between forty and forty two thousand dollars.

0:01:42.280 --> 0:01:45.679
<v Speaker 3>So the state of Indiana seized the land Rover through

0:01:46.120 --> 0:01:47.120
<v Speaker 3>asset forfeiture.

0:01:47.520 --> 0:01:52.800
<v Speaker 2>But what's asset forfeiture and why did law enforcement decide

0:01:52.800 --> 0:01:55.800
<v Speaker 2>to leave Tyson without his wheels over a drug offence?

0:01:59.040 --> 0:02:03.880
<v Speaker 3>Asset forfeiture sure is a practice whereby government can confiscate

0:02:03.960 --> 0:02:06.560
<v Speaker 3>property that was used in a crime, such as a

0:02:06.600 --> 0:02:09.000
<v Speaker 3>car or in some cases, even something as major as

0:02:09.040 --> 0:02:12.640
<v Speaker 3>a house. And often they can do it even if

0:02:12.680 --> 0:02:15.800
<v Speaker 3>the owner of the property was never convicted of any crime,

0:02:16.080 --> 0:02:18.239
<v Speaker 3>and indeed even if he or she was never charged

0:02:18.240 --> 0:02:22.000
<v Speaker 3>for it. So you get examples like the police will

0:02:22.000 --> 0:02:25.840
<v Speaker 3>stop someone's car, perhaps for a minor traffic violation. Then

0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:29.320
<v Speaker 3>they'll ask to search the car, and then they find

0:02:29.440 --> 0:02:32.000
<v Speaker 3>some money in the car. Say you're transporting cash that

0:02:32.120 --> 0:02:35.040
<v Speaker 3>some people do. The police might decide it seems likely

0:02:35.480 --> 0:02:38.040
<v Speaker 3>that this money was acquired in a drug transaction or

0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:41.040
<v Speaker 3>some kind of other illegal transaction. They take the car

0:02:41.120 --> 0:02:45.240
<v Speaker 3>potentially and the money as well. Similarly, if, for instance,

0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:47.760
<v Speaker 3>you lent your car to a friend, and then the

0:02:47.880 --> 0:02:52.040
<v Speaker 3>friend was suspected of driving it to buy illegal drug,

0:02:52.240 --> 0:02:55.480
<v Speaker 3>then your car could be confiscated, even though you may

0:02:55.480 --> 0:02:57.200
<v Speaker 3>not even have known that your friend was going to

0:02:57.320 --> 0:02:59.960
<v Speaker 3>use it for that purpose. And sometimes that can happen,

0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:04.799
<v Speaker 3>and even if the friend himself never get charged with anything,

0:03:05.919 --> 0:03:09.360
<v Speaker 3>And there are many many examples like this. They vary

0:03:09.480 --> 0:03:13.360
<v Speaker 3>somewhat by state, but the basic idea is that the

0:03:13.400 --> 0:03:16.640
<v Speaker 3>government can seize property that they think might have been

0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:19.640
<v Speaker 3>used in a crime in many cases, in most states,

0:03:19.639 --> 0:03:22.240
<v Speaker 3>they don't have to prove that it actually happened. They

0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:25.320
<v Speaker 3>certainly don't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed,

0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:28.160
<v Speaker 3>the procedures in many states are such that once they

0:03:28.160 --> 0:03:31.200
<v Speaker 3>seize your property for asset forfeiture, the a wordness and

0:03:31.240 --> 0:03:33.880
<v Speaker 3>effect falls on you to prove that you're innocent or

0:03:34.280 --> 0:03:37.440
<v Speaker 3>the property wasn't used in a crime. And often the

0:03:37.560 --> 0:03:41.400
<v Speaker 3>cost of getting the property back is actually more valuable

0:03:41.400 --> 0:03:44.280
<v Speaker 3>than the property itself. So if they see something that's

0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:46.440
<v Speaker 3>worth five hundred or one thousand, or even two or

0:03:46.440 --> 0:03:49.680
<v Speaker 3>three thousand dollars, as is often the case, in order

0:03:49.720 --> 0:03:52.320
<v Speaker 3>to mitigate the issue and get it back, even if

0:03:52.360 --> 0:03:55.120
<v Speaker 3>you're successful, you may have to pay a lawyer more

0:03:55.200 --> 0:03:58.560
<v Speaker 3>money than the property is worth, and it may take

0:03:58.640 --> 0:04:00.920
<v Speaker 3>you many weeks for many months to even get a

0:04:01.000 --> 0:04:03.200
<v Speaker 3>hearing about it, much west get the property back.

0:04:07.040 --> 0:04:10.080
<v Speaker 2>Now, at this point you may be thinking, big deal.

0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:13.800
<v Speaker 2>Guy buys expensive car. Guy drives the car to sell

0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:18.560
<v Speaker 2>drugs to undercover cops. Guy gets punished. Who cares about

0:04:18.560 --> 0:04:22.040
<v Speaker 2>his car? This seems just. But the issue here isn't

0:04:22.080 --> 0:04:24.920
<v Speaker 2>the taking of the car. It's that there was no

0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:28.479
<v Speaker 2>due process to take it. And law enforcement can sell

0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:31.560
<v Speaker 2>assets seized via forfeiture and add it to their budgets.

0:04:32.240 --> 0:04:34.560
<v Speaker 2>And if you want your stuff back, you have to

0:04:34.600 --> 0:04:37.360
<v Speaker 2>take them to court using money you probably don't have.

0:04:38.000 --> 0:04:41.960
<v Speaker 2>There's no accountability, there's no rule of law. So Tyson

0:04:42.520 --> 0:04:44.360
<v Speaker 2>went to court.

0:04:48.600 --> 0:04:52.520
<v Speaker 3>And Tyson Tims represented by the Institute for Justice. They

0:04:52.720 --> 0:04:57.359
<v Speaker 3>argued that this seizure viuated the excessive fines clause of

0:04:57.400 --> 0:04:59.840
<v Speaker 3>the Eighth Amendment. The eight Amendment is best known for

0:05:00.080 --> 0:05:03.680
<v Speaker 3>or forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, but it also forbids

0:05:03.800 --> 0:05:04.760
<v Speaker 3>excessive finds.

0:05:05.240 --> 0:05:08.280
<v Speaker 2>And thus began a game of pinball for Tyson Tims

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:11.719
<v Speaker 2>and the Institute for Justice. Between court systems.

0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:18.120
<v Speaker 3>So this case is unusual even by the standards of

0:05:18.160 --> 0:05:21.560
<v Speaker 3>federal Supreme Court cases. That not only did it reach

0:05:21.600 --> 0:05:25.200
<v Speaker 3>the Federal Supreme Court, but there are also three separate

0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:29.240
<v Speaker 3>Indiana State Supreme Court decisions, and there are not many

0:05:29.320 --> 0:05:33.839
<v Speaker 3>Supreme Court cases historically which are like that. That's extremely unusual,

0:05:35.440 --> 0:05:39.240
<v Speaker 3>and the case raised two important issues that the Supreme

0:05:39.240 --> 0:05:43.240
<v Speaker 3>Court had never previously resolved. One is whether the Excessive

0:05:43.279 --> 0:05:46.880
<v Speaker 3>Fines cause even applies to state and local governments at all,

0:05:47.240 --> 0:05:51.039
<v Speaker 3>as opposed to just a federal government. Overlying period of time,

0:05:51.440 --> 0:05:54.440
<v Speaker 3>the Supreme Court has gradually decided that nearly every other

0:05:54.520 --> 0:05:56.800
<v Speaker 3>part of the Bill of Rights, with a few exceptions,

0:05:56.839 --> 0:06:00.600
<v Speaker 3>applies to state and local governments and not just to government.

0:06:00.720 --> 0:06:03.080
<v Speaker 3>But they had never decided this would respect to the

0:06:03.080 --> 0:06:06.640
<v Speaker 3>Excessive Fines cause. So when the case initially reached the

0:06:06.680 --> 0:06:10.279
<v Speaker 3>State Supreme Court of Indiana, the state Supreme Court said, well,

0:06:10.640 --> 0:06:12.799
<v Speaker 3>this doesn't apply to the states, or if it does,

0:06:13.120 --> 0:06:15.839
<v Speaker 3>we the Supreme Court of Indiana can't say that it does.

0:06:16.120 --> 0:06:19.200
<v Speaker 3>Only the federal Supreme Court can make that decision. The

0:06:19.240 --> 0:06:22.839
<v Speaker 3>other big issue is, let's assume the Excessive Fines Cause

0:06:22.960 --> 0:06:26.680
<v Speaker 3>does apply to state governments do asset forfeitures qualify as

0:06:26.720 --> 0:06:30.520
<v Speaker 3>excessive fines because maybe ASCID four viitures just aren't finds

0:06:30.560 --> 0:06:33.120
<v Speaker 3>at all. That's another thing that the State of Indiana

0:06:33.240 --> 0:06:39.159
<v Speaker 3>argued in this case. So when the case got to

0:06:39.200 --> 0:06:42.480
<v Speaker 3>the Supreme Court, the court actually showed a rare degree

0:06:42.480 --> 0:06:47.159
<v Speaker 3>of unanimity. All nine justices, both liberal and conservative, concluded

0:06:47.400 --> 0:06:52.000
<v Speaker 3>that the cause does in fact apply to state governments

0:06:52.200 --> 0:06:54.360
<v Speaker 3>and local governments as well as the federal government. Everybody,

0:06:54.400 --> 0:06:57.200
<v Speaker 3>I think expected that outcome would have been very surprising

0:06:57.240 --> 0:06:58.920
<v Speaker 3>if the court had said, no, this is the one

0:06:58.920 --> 0:07:03.200
<v Speaker 3>part of the Bill Rights that doesn't apply against the states. Secondly,

0:07:03.760 --> 0:07:08.320
<v Speaker 3>they also ruled that at least some asset forfeitures can

0:07:08.480 --> 0:07:12.640
<v Speaker 3>indeed be fines excessive finds, and therefore, if they're big enough,

0:07:12.680 --> 0:07:16.320
<v Speaker 3>they could be struck down as excessive. And they rejected

0:07:16.360 --> 0:07:20.040
<v Speaker 3>the argument to forfeitures just aren't finds at all, because

0:07:20.320 --> 0:07:23.400
<v Speaker 3>the state did argue that this is just an attempt

0:07:23.440 --> 0:07:26.360
<v Speaker 3>to seize property you use for legal purposes. It's not

0:07:26.560 --> 0:07:30.760
<v Speaker 3>really a punishment of the person who committed the offense,

0:07:30.920 --> 0:07:33.280
<v Speaker 3>or maybe even in many cases didn't commit any offense.

0:07:33.400 --> 0:07:36.120
<v Speaker 3>And I need a court ruled correctly that finds and

0:07:36.200 --> 0:07:40.280
<v Speaker 3>forfeitures are sufficiently similar that many, if not all, asset

0:07:40.320 --> 0:07:47.280
<v Speaker 3>forfeitures can in fact qualify as finds. But the court

0:07:47.360 --> 0:07:50.520
<v Speaker 3>left opened the issue of what is an exactly that

0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:54.640
<v Speaker 3>makes an asset forfeiture excessive? And this issue has ended

0:07:54.720 --> 0:07:57.240
<v Speaker 3>up in the lower courts with the result that even

0:07:57.280 --> 0:08:00.920
<v Speaker 3>the specific case of Tyson Tims, actually they made it

0:08:01.000 --> 0:08:04.920
<v Speaker 3>back to the Indiana Supreme Court two more times, one

0:08:05.000 --> 0:08:08.120
<v Speaker 3>time where the Indiana Supreme Court set up a test

0:08:08.520 --> 0:08:11.800
<v Speaker 3>for how they think the excessiveness of the fine should

0:08:11.800 --> 0:08:15.320
<v Speaker 3>be determined, and then a second case where even though

0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:17.240
<v Speaker 3>the test that they shet up, I think it was

0:08:17.280 --> 0:08:20.040
<v Speaker 3>clear that Tyson Tims should win under that test, because,

0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:22.720
<v Speaker 3>among other things, the value of the wand Rover is

0:08:22.760 --> 0:08:26.240
<v Speaker 3>about four times the maximum find that you could get

0:08:26.240 --> 0:08:29.600
<v Speaker 3>for a criminal conviction in Indiana for the type of

0:08:29.680 --> 0:08:33.280
<v Speaker 3>illegal drug transaction that he attempted. But nonetheless, the State

0:08:33.320 --> 0:08:38.000
<v Speaker 3>of Indiana, much like Inspector Javert in Wayne Miserabwe, they

0:08:38.080 --> 0:08:40.560
<v Speaker 3>continued their single mind in pursuit of the wand Rover.

0:08:40.600 --> 0:08:42.559
<v Speaker 3>They didn't want to give it up, so they continued

0:08:42.559 --> 0:08:44.840
<v Speaker 3>to litigate the case. So it went back to the

0:08:44.880 --> 0:08:47.880
<v Speaker 3>State Supreme Court. Yet again, this is the third time

0:08:47.920 --> 0:08:50.800
<v Speaker 3>the case went to the Indiana State Supreme Court, and

0:08:50.840 --> 0:08:53.960
<v Speaker 3>in that instance, the Indiana State Supreme Court finally ruled

0:08:54.160 --> 0:08:58.440
<v Speaker 3>that Tyson Tims could in fact get his wand Rover back. So,

0:08:58.679 --> 0:09:03.560
<v Speaker 3>after a legal battle that lasted some seven years, Tyson

0:09:03.600 --> 0:09:06.040
<v Speaker 3>Tims did in fact recover the wand Rover and is

0:09:06.080 --> 0:09:14.720
<v Speaker 3>now happily driving it. Now. Most cases don't go through

0:09:15.160 --> 0:09:18.600
<v Speaker 3>that lawing a process or are that costly. I don't

0:09:18.640 --> 0:09:21.680
<v Speaker 3>know how much money IJ spent litigating this case, but

0:09:21.720 --> 0:09:24.440
<v Speaker 3>it is probably into several hundreds of thousands of dollars

0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:26.360
<v Speaker 3>or even more so obvious who is more than the

0:09:26.440 --> 0:09:28.800
<v Speaker 3>value of the wand Rover. Even though the wand Rover

0:09:28.920 --> 0:09:32.200
<v Speaker 3>is a fairly expensive and valuable vehicle, as I said before,

0:09:32.240 --> 0:09:35.600
<v Speaker 3>it's worth about forty thousand dollars. That said, the typical

0:09:35.760 --> 0:09:39.240
<v Speaker 3>asset forfeiture probably involves and mounts in the range of

0:09:39.520 --> 0:09:42.800
<v Speaker 3>property worth five hundred or one thousand dollars, and even

0:09:43.280 --> 0:09:46.920
<v Speaker 3>the lawyer's fees for a more conventional case will easily

0:09:46.960 --> 0:09:49.280
<v Speaker 3>exceed that. That's actually a more general problem we have

0:09:49.320 --> 0:09:53.120
<v Speaker 3>in this country that legal services for small scale losses

0:09:53.120 --> 0:09:56.040
<v Speaker 3>of this kind very often outstrip which you can gain

0:09:56.160 --> 0:09:58.960
<v Speaker 3>from getting back what you lost. In the Tim's case,

0:09:59.000 --> 0:10:02.000
<v Speaker 3>it's pretty obvious that Tyson Timms could not have won

0:10:02.040 --> 0:10:06.160
<v Speaker 3>this case without getting excellent pro bono representation NIA two

0:10:06.200 --> 0:10:09.960
<v Speaker 3>for Justice, which represented him for free from start to finish.

0:10:10.200 --> 0:10:13.720
<v Speaker 3>And they, of course weren't solely interested in the particular

0:10:13.840 --> 0:10:16.480
<v Speaker 3>vehicle at stake in this case. They wanted to set

0:10:16.520 --> 0:10:17.560
<v Speaker 3>a general precedent.

0:10:21.559 --> 0:10:23.960
<v Speaker 1>And a great job on the production by Monty Montgomery

0:10:24.000 --> 0:10:27.040
<v Speaker 1>and a special thanks to Iliyah Suhman for telling us

0:10:27.080 --> 0:10:30.160
<v Speaker 1>this story. He's a law professor at George Mason University.

0:10:30.480 --> 0:10:33.280
<v Speaker 1>Check out his book Free to Move Foot, Voting, Migration

0:10:33.440 --> 0:10:36.240
<v Speaker 1>and Political Freedom and you can find that at Amazon

0:10:36.280 --> 0:10:40.080
<v Speaker 1>dot com. Tyson Tim's Case another installment in our great

0:10:40.160 --> 0:10:43.440
<v Speaker 1>Rule of Law series here on our American Story