The Supreme said in an unanimous decision that state & local governments cannot dole out $50 buck penalties for 2 buck crimes. The case involved the seizure of a land-rover over what amounted to a couple hundred dollars worth of illegal drugs.
How will this roll out locally in dallas?
How do people now, who have had their property seized,in some cases their homes, get their property back? Can they? Will this only affect future cases?
- grean
- 02-20-2019, 02:54 PM
- ShysterJon
- 02-20-2019, 04:26 PM
In Texas, the State can validly seize and possess non-evidential property allegedly connected with a crime by filing a civil forfeiture action. The State sues the thing at issue, not the suspect/defendant; example: The State of Texas v. One (1) 1985 Ford Corvette Stingray. If such an action is filed, the suspect/defendant may contest the seizure. Whether or not the State files a forfeiture action, the suspect/defendant may attempt to utilize the bond provision of the Texas forfeiture statute asking the judge to return the thing.
The Dallas County DA's Civil Division has been aggressive using the Texas forfeiture statute. What happens after Timbs v. Indiana (the new U.S. Supreme Court case at issue) depends on whether the thing fits within the "excessive punitive economic sanctions" test in Timbs.
Unless stated otherwise in an opinion, "[T]o the extent that a judicial decision constitutes a new legal precedent, it will ordinarily be applied to all undecided cases that are subsequently litigated, regardless of whether the relevant events occurred before or after the new precedent was announced." See:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/politic...cial-decisions
This means that if a civil forfeiture case is active, or if forfeiture is used in the future, the holding of Timbs applies. If not, it doesn't.
The Dallas County DA's Civil Division has been aggressive using the Texas forfeiture statute. What happens after Timbs v. Indiana (the new U.S. Supreme Court case at issue) depends on whether the thing fits within the "excessive punitive economic sanctions" test in Timbs.
Unless stated otherwise in an opinion, "[T]o the extent that a judicial decision constitutes a new legal precedent, it will ordinarily be applied to all undecided cases that are subsequently litigated, regardless of whether the relevant events occurred before or after the new precedent was announced." See:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/politic...cial-decisions
This means that if a civil forfeiture case is active, or if forfeiture is used in the future, the holding of Timbs applies. If not, it doesn't.
- dj8rocks
- 02-20-2019, 09:18 PM
Shyster, it is good to see you back among us.
- rexdutchman
- 02-21-2019, 08:44 AM
Good to see you back SJ -- I kinda think its always been a 8AD issue