Supreme Court ruling to curb Michigan's police seizures property, cars

Ruling in the Indiana case of a low-level heroin dealer whose $42,000 Land Rover SUV was confiscated by police — even though the man served no jail time — the U.S. Supreme Court said Wednesday that the nation's criminal justice system may not impose excessive criminal fines and forfeitures.

The court's unanimous decision reflected broad support across the political spectrum for rolling back drug-forfeiture laws, and it's expected to have major effects in Michigan.

The state's most widespread abuse is the seizure of vehicles, said Dan Korobkin, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan.

"Poor people here routinely lose their cars to forfeiture for minor offenses. I think this decision flashes a yellow light for state and local authorities that want to take away people's property," including cash and houses as well as vehicles, Korobkin said.

Abusive seizure, called "policing for profit," occurs when police confiscate property whose value is "well out of proportion to the criminal activity, and they use it to fund their own budgets," Korobkin said.

More:Supreme Court strikes blow against states that raise revenue by fines, forfeitures

Thursday's ruling, which bars "excessive fines," applies to states and localities as well as the federal government. Writing the opinion was Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just back in court this week after lung cancer surgery.

It was a victory for Indiana resident Tyson Timbs, who sold less than $400 worth of heroin to undercover police officers in 2013. Upon conviction, the State of Indiana seized Timbs' Land Rover, which he had purchased for more than $42,000 with the proceeds of his father's life insurance policy. That seizure now must be reconsidered by Indiana courts.

In Michigan, the most immediate effect of the landmark ruling will be to add momentum behind reforming the state's forfeiture laws, with key votes expected next week. 

More:Police can't seize property until conviction under bill passed by Senate

More:Police seize property and cash in questionable raids

A Michigan State Police report said that law enforcement agencies statewide seized more than $13 million in cash and property in 2017. The average value of vehicles seized was $1,000 and the average amount of cash confiscated was about $500, according an analysis by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Midland that has joined with the left-leaning Michigan ACLU to push for reforming forfeiture.

In the Michigan Legislature, Sen. Pete Lucido, R-Shelby Township, championed such reform for years in the state House but made only incremental changes against stiff opposition, Lucido said. This month, now elected to the Senate, he said he expects a major reform bill could be enacted.

"This has been out of control across the country and now the Supreme Court of the United States has finally recognized that," Lucido said. For decades as a criminal defense attorney, he witnessed "the pain that individuals and families have endured after being pirated from their property," he said.

Victims, whether or not they're arrested, are told they must pay several thousand dollars to hire a lawyer to contest a seizure, "and most of them can't do it — they just walk away," Lucido said.

Lucido is sponsor of a bill requiring that a suspect be convicted or accept a plea bargain before authorities may take ownership of property valued at less than $50,000. The bill passed the Michigan Senate by a vote of 36-2 on Feb. 15. Lucido said he hoped it would come up for a vote in the House next week, although "the cops say they're going to push back on it."

One forceful opponent is former Livonia Police Chief Robert Stevenson, who, for the last eight years, has been executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, a Lansing-based professional group of 1,200 members.

"I've been around for so long, I worked in drug enforcement before there was confiscation," Stevenson said.

"Back then, we could charge the drug dealers but they were still able to keep their ill-gotten profits. Now, fast-forward 40 years and the pendulum swings the other way. We still think there's a place for forfeiture," Stephenson said.

"The other side says it's very unfair to seize property without a conviction, but the IRS does it. The state tax people do it. And lawyers do it all the time. They go to court and get judgments," he added.

Contact Bill Laitner: blaitner@freepress.com. USA Today contributed to this report.