After a federal judge ruled part of Indiana’s civil forfeiture framework unconstitutional, state lawmakers are now reviewing proposed legislation to bring that framework in compliance with federal mandates and prosecutors’ suggestions.
With a little more than four months until the start of the 2018 Indiana General Assembly, lawmakers are back to work to consider two high-profile issues being closely watched by law enforcement and prosecutors throughout the state: civil forfeiture and constitutional carry — the proposition that people should be able to carry handguns without a license.
Amid discussions on legislative reform to Indiana’s civil forfeiture framework, a federal judge has ruled part of that framework unconstitutional, determining the process by which the state can seize someone’s property before an official forfeiture action violates due process protections.
The state of Indiana must return $30,000 that was seized as part of a suspected drug trafficking scheme after the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday the state failed to prove the money could reasonably be considered the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Indiana lawmakers are preparing to return to the statehouse and consider legal issues such as civil forfeiture and indigent defense services when the Interim Study Committee on Courts and the Judiciary meets for the first time next week.
As Indiana considers revamping its civil forfeiture law, the federal government has given state and local law enforcement a mechanism to potentially do an end-run around whatever reforms are made.
The Supreme Court of the United States is limiting the government's ability to seize assets from people who are convicted of drug crimes but receive little of the illegal proceeds.
A Marion Superior court erred in denying a man’s motion to dismiss a transfer action against him after police seized nearly $50,000 in suspected drug money from him because an active case related to the transfer was already pending in another court, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
The state must return funds seized from a man convicted of possession of marijuana after the Indiana Court of Appeals found no proof linking the cash to any drug crimes.
The Supreme Court of the United States will enter the debate over civil forfeiture Wednesday when the eight justices consider whether the government can seize property from a convicted co-conspirator who did not receive any of the profits from the criminal transactions.
The U.S. Supreme Court established a standard nearly 20 years ago for determining when the punitive nature of a civil forfeiture has surpassed a reasonable limit: if the forfeiture is “grossly disproportionate” to the criminal conduct in question.
Marion County has failed in its attempt to derail a lawsuit over the state’s civil forfeiture statute by giving the property back to the named plaintiff.
Legislation and lawsuits seek to curb the government’s ability to seize private property.
The justices of the Indiana Supreme Court have agreed to decide whether the state should be allowed to seize a heroin dealer’s Land Rover as a fine for his drug crimes despite the fact that the vehicle is worth four times more than a statutory cap on fines.
Indiana lawmakers are pushing to change a law that allows the government in some cases to take the personal property of a citizen.
A bill scheduled for a hearing before the Indiana Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee Tuesday would require law enforcement to get a conviction before moving ahead with civil forfeiture.
Civil forfeiture of a heroin dealer’s Land Rover purportedly worth about $40,000 would be an unconstitutionally excessive fine, the majority of an Indiana Court of Appeals panel ruled Thursday, but a dissenting judge wrote that it shouldn’t matter whether the dealer used a shiny new car or a “beater” to facilitate his drug trade.