No. I believe the most recent high-profile case merely established that state civil forfeitures were subject to the 8th Amendment prohibition on excessive fines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana
It's unlikely it would ever be declared unconstitutional. More likely (but still not very) courts will eat around the edges, minimizing the ability of law enforcement to use asset forfeitures as a substitute for proper criminal prosecution. (Note that in the Timbs case he was simultaneously criminally prosecuted, and (IIRC) it was undisputed his vehicle was used in the commission of a crime. Depending on how you look at it, this context could bode well or bode poorly for future judicial reform.) Much more likely still is legislatures passing laws to reign in law enforcement use of civil forfeiture. Still a very long way to go, though.
It occurred to me that civil forfeiture in the US may have been an attempt to regulate highway robbery. The US traditionally had giant swaths of lightly populated territory between population centers. Most other regions of the world with similar dynamics have struggled with lawmen or other highwaymen illegally confiscating property in such situations.
Did we simply make highway robbery legal if it’s done with a badge?
You’re very close - it’s started in maritime law. The idea was if the captain of a ship had committed a crime, or incurred a fine, and then skipped town, you could seize the ship.
I think it’s a bit less nefarious than that & mostly just another way to fuck over minorities & make them submissive to authority.
It isn’t too often you hear about joe average white guy getting held up in a civil forfeiture dispute. Completely innocent aside from not being white on the other hand, it comes to light every now & then.
Without trying to incite a political flame war in these comments - you don’t really hear about the US Republican Party of personal freedoms & ability to shoot & kill anybody who steals from you trying to overturn civil forfeiture.
Timbs v. Indiana is a great case. I've seen too many civil forfeitures where someone lost their brand new $60,000 car because they got some sort of minor traffic infraction.
In theory, Timbs has limited that.
I've not seen it used much in practice yet, but most state and local governments are seriously winding down their civil forfeiture practices anyway due to the changing tide of public opinion from abuse.
It's unlikely it would ever be declared unconstitutional. More likely (but still not very) courts will eat around the edges, minimizing the ability of law enforcement to use asset forfeitures as a substitute for proper criminal prosecution. (Note that in the Timbs case he was simultaneously criminally prosecuted, and (IIRC) it was undisputed his vehicle was used in the commission of a crime. Depending on how you look at it, this context could bode well or bode poorly for future judicial reform.) Much more likely still is legislatures passing laws to reign in law enforcement use of civil forfeiture. Still a very long way to go, though.