> Timbs sued or appealed the confiscation by Indiana, which he he could prove he didn't buy with drug money.
Shouldn't the burden of proof of financing lie with the state before property possession is carried out? It is unfair for the defendant to prove the source of funds for his own property
People have been saying that stuff for years. Unfortunately, this affects mostly folks doing illegal things or those accused of them, making the public at large have little incentive to fix it.
The crucial detail is that civil forfeiture works by suing the property, not its owner. The owner is just an "interested party" and has limited standing to fight the seizure. It's mind-blowingly bizarre.
The state did prove that Timbs and committed the crime he was being fined for, the question at hand is whether the state can take away his car.
One reason might have been if it was the proceeds of drug-dealing. But that reason is not relevant since he could prove otherwise (let alone whether the burden of proof is/should be on him).
The other reason is simpler: States can fine people for stuff, but (according to the USSC) the fine can't be excessive.
This is why evil will always win, because good is dumb.
Or more precisely, evil people will happily violate entire tranches of law while the good people are stuck prosecuting one case at a time, painfully establishing precedent by precedent, and in the meantime the world has moved on.
Blame it on police and military fetishization. At the end of the day, if you resist authority trying to take your shit illegally, it will come to blows. If you choose to defend yourself against them, you are now very much on the wrong side of the law.
It has to be less illegal to defend yourself from authority if you feel you're in danger.
Shouldn't the burden of proof of financing lie with the state before property possession is carried out? It is unfair for the defendant to prove the source of funds for his own property