civil forfeiture

In 2013, police took Tyson Timbs’s $35,000 Land Rover after he used it to transport a few hundred dollars' worth of heroin. While Timbs pleaded guilty to dealing drugs, he challenged the police seizure of his vehicle, arguing it was an unconstitutionally excessive fine.

Indiana's high court rejected arguments from the state attorney general's office that the vehicle seizure was proper because it was used in commission of a crime.

Police seized Tyson Timbs' $35,000 Land Rover in 2013 when he was arrested for selling near $500 worth of heroin.

An Indiana man who had his $40,000 Land Rover seized after a small-time drug deal isn't getting it back yet, even though the U.S. Supreme Court sided with him for a key ruling on excessive criminal fines earlier this year.

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that the state's General Assembly is within its rights to divert civil forfeiture proceeds for law enforcement purposes from a fund for schools.

The Supreme Court left little doubt Wednesday that it would rule that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to the states.

Attorneys for Tyson Timbs and the state of Indiana will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 28 whether the Eighth Amendment protection from "excessive fines" applies to civil forfeitures at the state level.

The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a case that challenges how Marion County police and prosecutors disburse proceeds from property they've seized and sold.

Prosecutors and law enforcement agencies say civil forfeiture empowers them to take the fruits of crime and use some of the proceeds to further other investigations. But critics say that creates conflicts of interest - and may even violate the state constitution.

An Indiana law allows police to seize thousands of dollars worth of property if they think it's involved in a suspected crime - regardless of whether the person who owns it is ever convicted.