Blog Archives

8th Amendment and Excessive Fines



“nor excessive fines imposed…” – 8th Amendment

A professional musician travelling with $91,000 in cash he was going to use to buy a recording studio is stopped in Wyoming for a seat belt violation. The Police take the money, and claim that they have a right to it.

in Indiana, what happens when a young man sells four grams of heroin to an undercover cop? Obviously, he gets busted, does a year on house arrest and pays a fine. Then he decided to get his life back together and heads out to find a new job.

But…

The cops weren’t done. They used Civil Forfeiture laws to seize his car, valued at $40,000. Don’t read too much into that value, there is a valid reason that he had the money to buy it in the first place.

He sued, and the lower State Court held that he should get his car back. After all, it was only 4 ounces of heroin. The Law enforcement agencies appealed it to the State Supreme Court.

The highest Court in Indiana, along with Mississippi, Michigan and Montana proclaimed that the 8th Amendments prohibition against excessive fines “does not apply” to it.

And so… we’re off and running to ask the Supreme Court one question: does the 8th Amendment prohibition against excessive fines apply to the States?


Advertisements

Excessive Bail



Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed… 8th Amendment

In recent days, members of the California State Senate and Assembly have made the reformation of the Bail system a “Legislative Priority” in the State. Their reasoning is that on any given day, 63% of the people held in the States Jails have not been convicted of any crime. They are simply awaiting trial and cannot – for a variety of reasons – make bail.

The Legislative argument goes that the main reason that people cannot make bail is twofold. First that bail levels are set far too high in the State. Second is that the Bail system discriminates against those who are “poor,” in favor of those who have money. So the solution that at least two other States have elected to employ is to eliminate Bail requirements for some “low level” crimes.

The history of Bail in The United States traces its origins to 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. And, with just a single word change since, has been a cornerstone of those rights which we have held dear, both as Englishmen and as Americans.

So is Bail really discriminatory? Or is there a bigger problem? Or any problem at all? And why hasn’t the Supreme Court addressed it?

Today we look at Bail on Constitution Thursday.

Download 150x150

10835089_780510932031846_1182469276961677651_o

2017-logo-shield-green

Supreme Court Roundup For June 20th

Although we did not get any big rulings this morning (or at least none of the juicy ones), the Supreme Court did issue several interesting rulings today and I thought I would give you a brief overview. None of these rulings are that earthshaking but then it is not unusual for the relatively common to have a much greater impact than the big-name ruling.

One of the cases they decided today was Descamps v. United States, a case which challenged a federal law known as the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) more commonly referred to as a three strikes law. Read the rest of this entry

%d bloggers like this: