The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D pled guilty to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. D was sentenced to one year of home detention and five years of probation, which included a court-supervised addiction-treatment program. The sentence required D to pay fees and costs totaling $1,203. At the time of D’s arrest, the police seized his vehicle, a Land Rover SUV D had purchased for about $42,000. D paid for the vehicle with money he received from an insurance policy when his father died. P engaged a private law firm to bring a civil suit for forfeiture of D’s Land Rover, charging that the vehicle had been used to transport heroin. The court denied observing that D had recently purchased the vehicle for $42,000, more than four times the maximum $10,000 monetary fine assessable against him for his drug conviction. Forfeiture would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of D’s offense, hence unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed. It held that the Excessive Fines Clause constrains only federal action and is inapplicable to state impositions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.