Podcast appearances and mentions of tyson timbs

On this episode of Our American Stories, Tyson Timbs found out that old habits do indeed die hard when he was arrested and convicted for selling drugs to undercover cops. He also found out what asset forfeiture was when the State of Indiana took his Land Rover and held onto it for 7 years.   Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Just when you think you've seen it all, the FBI goes and does something so egregious that it shocks even long-time Institute for Justice attorneys.If you've been following the issue of civil asset forfeiture, you may remember the case of Timbs v. Indiana*, in which the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a decision by Indiana's state Supreme Court, finding that the state's seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover violated the 8th amendment's “excessive fines and fees” clause.Law enforcement departments across the country have been colluding with federal law enforcement to effectively “police for profit,” with civil asset forfeiture being their primary tool. Under this practice, a person need not be found guilty for their property to be taken. Tyson Timbs, the defendant in that case, had the help of the IJ to fight through the long legal battle that he ultimately won. Many innocent victims of forfeiture laws simply throw up their hands and accept defeat.Mike Greenberg is an attorney at the Institute for Justice who will join me Sunday (1/22) to discuss a new case in which the FBI blatantly violated the terms of their warrant in seizing over $80 million in assets from the private vaults kept by a safe deposit company. A majority of the assets and precious family heirlooms have now been restored to their rightful owners – but only after a fight.Greenberg was part of the IJ's legal team that fought on behalf of Paul and Jennifer Snitko, whose belongings were wrongly seized and photographed by FBI agents in March of 2021 without probable cause. Doesn't the Constitution say something about that?“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. “– The Fourth Amendment to the ConstitutionSeems pretty clear cut to me. Greenberg and I will discuss the facts of the case before delivering a verdict.What will the consequences be for the FBI this time?

On this episode of Our American Stories, Iowa listener Joy Neal Kidney shares her father's story. Our regular contributors Jon Elfner and Dr. Kate Masur, author of "Until Justice Be Done," tell the rest of the story that begins with three runaway enslaved people. Tyson Timbs tells us how he found out that old habits do indeed die hard when he was arrested and convicted for selling drugs to undercover cops. Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate) Time Codes: 00:00 - Reconciling Dad the Farmer and Dad the Veteran Pilot 10:00 - How The Civil War Openly Became about Slavery 35:00 - Why it Took One Man 7 Years to Get His Car Back Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of Our American Stories, The History Guy recalls the forgotten history of Christmas trees; John Rogers of Missouri never set out to be Santa... the first time he put on the red suit it was because the Santa before him at his local VFW tragically passed away. 21 years later, it's become his mission of joy; Tyson Timbs found out that old habits do indeed die hard when he was arrested and convicted for selling drugs to undercover cops. He also found out what asset forfeiture was when the State of Indiana took his Land Rover and held onto it for 7 years. Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate) Time Codes: 00:00 - The History of Christmas Trees 23:00 - The Accidental Santa 35:00 - Why it Took One Man 7 Years to Get His Car Back Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of Our American Stories, Andrew Thompson tells us about the origin of phrases in the English language; Osiris Hoil tells the story of when he lost his construction job in 2008, but through his fantastic cooking he started District Taco, D.C.'s best taco chain; and Montey Montgomery tells the story of how Tyson Timbs found out that old habits do indeed die hard when he was arrested and convicted for selling drugs to undercover cops. He also found out what asset forfeiture was when the State of Indiana took his Land Rover and held onto it for 7 years. Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate) Time Codes: 00:00 - The Wonderful Origins of Everyday Expressions 08:00 - From Fired High School Dropout... To Owning D.C.'s Best Taco Chain! 27:30 - Why it Took One Man 7 Years to get his Car Back Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling nudging states in the other direction, Indiana is continuing its fight to lay excessive fines over small-time drug crimes. Sam Gedge with the Institute for Justice is representing Tyson Timbs against Indiana. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

If you are convicted of a crime, can the police take hold of your personal property as part of your sentence? Forfeiture has resulted in many individuals losing some of their most valuable possessions. It has not helped police fight the War on Drugs and it remains one of the largest threat to personal property rights.Mentions:Throughout this episode Tess Terrible talked with; Tyson Timbs, Sam Gedge, Theshia Naidoo, Solicitor General Fisher, and Natalie Dowzicky.We also included Oral Argument from Timbs v. Indiana at the Supreme Court of the United StatesImage Credit: Institute for JusticeMusic by Cellophane Sam Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Back in 2013, Tyson Timbs’ $40,000 Land Rover was seized by police after he was arrested and charged with selling $400 worth of heroin. After Timbs and his attorney filed suit, his case went from Indiana state court all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. In a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, this ruling now requires cities and states, not just the Federal Government, to abide by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, preventing law enforcement from imposing excessive fines in seizure cases, setting up a historical precedent. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Wesley Hottot, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice and Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent for The National Law Journal and Law.com, as they take a look at the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, discuss the case, the path to the Supreme Court, and the impact on future cases. Wesley Hottot is a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice. Tony Mauro is the Supreme Court correspondent for The National Law Journal and Law.com. Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio.

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Louis Rulli, to discuss a landmark Supreme Court case on the issue of civil forfeiture.   Imagine being pulled over and having the police take all of your money before sending you on your way. It doesn’t sound like something that would happen here in America but it does. It’s called civil forfeiture and our guest, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Louis Rulli, joins us today to talk about it. Aaron and Professor Rulli discuss the ins and outs of civil forfeiture including a recent Supreme Court case that examined the law under the 8th and 14th Amendments.   The Supreme Court case specifically looked at a case where a man, Tyson Timbs, was convicted of selling $225 worth of heroin to undercover police officers. In addition to one year of house arrest, five years of probation, and $1,200 in fees and fines, Mr. Timbs’ $42,000 Land Rover was confiscated even though it was purchased with the inheritance from his father’s life insurance policy. There are also concerns that asset forfeiture has a racial component because minorities are more often subjected to these “fines.”   This is a fascinating, albeit scary, discussion with Professor Rulli about Civil Forfeiture and the role it plays in our criminal justice system.   Host: Aaron FreiwaldGuest: Louis Rulli   Follow Good Law | Bad Law:YouTube: Good Law | Bad LawInstagram: @GoodLawBadLawWebsite: https://www.law-podcast.com

On February 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Timbs v. Indiana, a case involving the incorporation of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause against the States.Following his arrest en route to a controlled drug purchase after having previously purchased about $400 worth of heroin from undercover police officers, Tyson Timbs pled guilty to felony counts of drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft, and was sentenced to a year of home detention and several years of probation, plus roughly $1,200 in police costs and related fees. In addition, the State of Indiana sought forfeiture of Timbs’ Land Rover, which he had purchased using $42,000 of his late father’s life insurance proceeds. Indiana claimed that it could seize the car because it had been driven to buy and transport heroin, even though the car was worth more than four times the maximum fine permitted for Timbs’ drug conviction. The Supreme Court of Indiana upheld the forfeiture against an Eighth Amendment challenge on the grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court had never incorporated that amendment’s “excessive fines” clause against the states. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the issue.By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Supreme Court of Indiana and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause against the States. Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. To the discuss the case, we have Christopher Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy at University of Mississippi School of Law.

On February 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Timbs v. Indiana, a case involving the incorporation of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause against the States.Following his arrest en route to a controlled drug purchase after having previously purchased about $400 worth of heroin from undercover police officers, Tyson Timbs pled guilty to felony counts of drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft, and was sentenced to a year of home detention and several years of probation, plus roughly $1,200 in police costs and related fees. In addition, the State of Indiana sought forfeiture of Timbs’ Land Rover, which he had purchased using $42,000 of his late father’s life insurance proceeds. Indiana claimed that it could seize the car because it had been driven to buy and transport heroin, even though the car was worth more than four times the maximum fine permitted for Timbs’ drug conviction. The Supreme Court of Indiana upheld the forfeiture against an Eighth Amendment challenge on the grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court had never incorporated that amendment’s “excessive fines” clause against the states. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the issue.By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Supreme Court of Indiana and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause against the States. Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. To the discuss the case, we have Christopher Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy at University of Mississippi School of Law.

In this episode, Wesley Hottot, a Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, discusses the pending Supreme Court case Timbs v. Indiana, in which he represented the petitioner, Tyson Timbs. Hottot describes the background of the case and explains the constitutional issue at stake: Whether the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the states. He discusses the process of briefing the case and preparing for the oral argument, and reflects on the experience of arguing before the court. More information about Tyson Timbs and his case against Indiana is available on the Institute for Justice website here. Hottot is on Twitter at @thehottot. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What makes a government fine excessive? Timbs v. Indiana, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, may provide some important clarification. Sam Gedge is an Institute for Justice attorney representing Tyson Timbs before the high court. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Timbs v. Indiana, a case involving the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the concept of “incorporation” against the states.In May 2013, Tyson Timbs was apprehended en route to a controlled drug purchase, having previously purchased about $400 worth of heroin from undercover police officers. He ultimately pled guilty to felony counts of drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft, and was sentenced to six years of imprisonment (with five suspended to probation). Timbs also had to pay roughly $1,200 in police costs and related fees. The State of Indiana then sought forfeiture of Timbs’ Land Rover, which he had used $42,000 of his late father’s life insurance proceeds to purchase, but had driven to buy and transport heroin. Lower courts ordered the vehicle released to Timbs, concluding that forfeiture of the Land Rover would impose an excessive fine in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Indiana, however, reinstated the forfeiture on the grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court had never incorporated the excessive fine clause against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.The U.S. Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to address that issue: whether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.To the discuss the case, we have Christopher Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy at University of Mississippi School of Law.

On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Timbs v. Indiana, a case involving the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the concept of “incorporation” against the states.In May 2013, Tyson Timbs was apprehended en route to a controlled drug purchase, having previously purchased about $400 worth of heroin from undercover police officers. He ultimately pled guilty to felony counts of drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft, and was sentenced to six years of imprisonment (with five suspended to probation). Timbs also had to pay roughly $1,200 in police costs and related fees. The State of Indiana then sought forfeiture of Timbs’ Land Rover, which he had used $42,000 of his late father’s life insurance proceeds to purchase, but had driven to buy and transport heroin. Lower courts ordered the vehicle released to Timbs, concluding that forfeiture of the Land Rover would impose an excessive fine in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Indiana, however, reinstated the forfeiture on the grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court had never incorporated the excessive fine clause against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.The U.S. Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to address that issue: whether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.To the discuss the case, we have Christopher Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy at University of Mississippi School of Law.

If we can say one thing definitively about government, we can say that it will not limit itself. The Bill of Rights and Constitution were the Founders' response to the possibility that the new Republic they were creating would end up just as oppressive as the crown government they were overthrowing.Were they successful?This question has been the most consistent theme of my show for the past 10 years.The topic of my show this Sunday gets to the core of this question.The case of Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover v. State of Indiana was argued last week, and we can expect a verdict by June. Tyson Timbs was convicted of dealing small amounts of heroin to fund a painkiller addiction he had developed after he began taking pain medications for a sore foot.The police apprehended him in his vehicle — a $42,000 Land Rover, which he had purchased with the proceeds of his recently deceased father's life insurance policy. Police seized the car, finding it guilty “in rem” (latin for “the thing itself”) and therefore subject to the practice known as civil asset forfeiture.Even after Timbs paid his debt to society through a mixture of house arrest, mandatory rehab, and other fines (and even though the maximum fine for his crime is specified at $10,000) the state refused to return the vehicle.“The right to be free from excessive fines remains fundamental today.”This line from the Institute for Justice's opening brief in Timbs' defense encapsulates the decision before the Supreme Court. The power to fine, Timbs' lawyers at the Institute for Justice note, is uniquely prone to abuse. Does the court affirm a tradition dating back to the Magna Carta that puts a check on the government's ability to “police for profit”?In this episode, Samuel Gedge, a lead attorney in the case, joins me to delve into the long history of excessive fines and explain why excessive fines are prohibited alongside “cruel and unusual punishment” in the 8th Amendment.Civil asset forfeiture has a long and nasty history, and in recent times has been an instrument of religious and racist bigotry. The Court has long held that such punishments are not allowed at the federal level, but the State of Indiana argues that it is exempt as a state and is justified in the seizure of Timbs' vehicle because of the in rem jurisdiction.As we await the outcome in Timbs v. Indiana, we have reason to be optimistic. Justices on both sides of the political spectrum seemed skeptical of the State of Indiana's line of reasoning — noting that most rights in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the states since the passage of the 14th Amendment.

In Timbs v. Indiana, after Tyson Timbs pled guilty to drug charges, the State of Indiana civilly forfeited his vehicle on the theory that he used the vehicle to transport drugs. A state trial court ruled that forfeiture of the $42,000 vehicle for the crime of selling less than $400 worth of drugs was “grossly disproportionate” to his wrongdoing and would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause did not even apply to the states. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court will hear argument on whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to states, just as it has applied to the federal government since 1791. Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Tyson Timbs, and Director of IJ’s National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse, will discuss the oral arguments in this teleforum. Featuring: Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In Timbs v. Indiana, after Tyson Timbs pled guilty to drug charges, the State of Indiana civilly forfeited his vehicle on the theory that he used the vehicle to transport drugs. A state trial court ruled that forfeiture of the $42,000 vehicle for the crime of selling less than $400 worth of drugs was “grossly disproportionate” to his wrongdoing and would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause did not even apply to the states. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court will hear argument on whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to states, just as it has applied to the federal government since 1791. Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Tyson Timbs, and Director of IJ’s National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse, will discuss the oral arguments in this teleforum. Featuring: Darpana Sheth, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.