Civil Forfeiture in Wyoming: the Coming Impact of the Timbs Ruling

by Wyoming Liberty Group Staff

The Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark decision regarding the constitutionality of civil asset forfeiture as it applies to the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Civil Asset Forfeiture is a mechanism law enforcement agencies use to seize property which they determine as associated with a crime. This process is controversial because the power is often left unchecked and unrestricted. Timbs v. Indiana reshapes the landscape on how states can impose fines and seizures. The decision could have major implications on Wyoming's civil forfeiture procedures.

Case Background

In 2013, an Indiana man named Tyson Timbs was arrested for selling $400 worth of heroin to undercover Indiana police officers. Upon pleading guilty, the State of Indiana used its civil forfeiture program to seize Timb's $42,000 Land Rover, which he had recently purchased with money from his late father's will. In some states, these seizures can occur with or without charges of wrongdoing. Timb's legal team argued that the seizure violated the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. In their decision, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with Mr. Timbs.

Timbs v. Indiana invokes a Fourteenth Amendment process known as "selective incorporation." With this decision, the Supreme Court incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment against the states. This means that states are no longer allowed to hand out excessive fines and must comply with the Eighth Amendment. In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Ginsburg argues that protection against excessive fines is "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty" and "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." This ruling will force states to revisit their own excessive fines limitations and could put constraints on asset forfeiture programs across the country.

What This Means For Wyoming

This precedent spells trouble for civil asset forfeiture laws as a whole. Some states, including Wyoming, allow for civil asset forfeiture in absence of a conviction. It is difficult, if not impossible, for many people to reclaim their seized property even if the accused are found innocent. The Institute for Justice estimates the state of Wyoming seizes approximately $171,000 per year in asset forfeiture.

In Wyoming, property can be taken by law enforcement upon a "preponderance of evidence," which is a low and subjective standard. Worse yet, law enforcement is allowed to retain up to 100% of the revenue from seizures. These agencies directly benefit from civil forfeiture, so it is no wonder agencies are encouraged to take property even without a strong case for conviction.

These civil forfeiture programs operate despite the Wyoming Constitution's own Excessive Fines Clause, found in Article One, Section Fourteen, which reads:

All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor shall cruel or unusual punishment be inflicted.

Although the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution uses almost the exact same wording, the enforcement of the excessive fines clauses has been different. The Federal courts tend to enforce a broader standard for what constitutes an excessive fine. With the Timbs ruling, Wyoming will now be subject to that same standard.

The Wyoming legislature has recognized civil asset forfeiture as an issue in the past. In 2015, the legislature passed civil forfeiture reform only for the bill to be vetoed by then-Governor Matt Mead. Unfortunately, no such reform gained any traction in this year's legislative session. The two most promising civil asset forfeiture reform bills, HB 315 and HB 316 (both sponsored by Representative Jared Olsen), failed to even pass out of committee.

Wyoming needs to consider asset forfeiture reform immediately. Upon reading the Timbs ruling, it is impossible to consider Wyoming's current standard as in line with the new standard for excessive fines. Civil forfeiture in Wyoming can be considered as nothing short of legalized theft if left unchanged. As Justice Thomas notes in his concurring opinion, Brutus argues in the Anti-Federalist Papers that a prohibition on excessive fines is fundamental to "the security of liberty" and is "necessary under the general government as under that of the individual states…" It is imperative that Wyoming fixes this issue once and for all by complying with the United States Constitution. The rights of the people to retain their own property have been under attack for far too long, and it is time that the state of Wyoming respect the basic liberties of its citizens.