Page 69 - 2019 A Police Officers Guide

transport heroin. Observing that Timbs had recently purchased the vehicle for more than four
times the maximum $10,000 monetary fine assessable against him for his drug conviction, the
trial court denied the State’s request. The vehicle’s forfeiture, the court determined, would be
grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs’ offense, and therefore unconstitutional under
the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

[emphasis by ed.]

The holding was upheld by the State appellate court and reversed by the State Supreme Court
which was, in turn, reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Note this was a 9-0 decision with
Gorsuch and Thomas filing concurring opinions.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the
States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply
rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history
for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against
or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal
purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the
Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming.
Purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the
Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming.

Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091, U.S. Supreme Court, Feb. 20, 2019.

**********************************************************************

CELL PHONE SEARCH WITH WARRANT

A jury convicted Charles Fulton, Sr. on four counts of sex trafficking and one count of
conspiracy. The most significant issue concerns a long-delayed search of his cell phone. We find
no basis to disturb the judgment. We AFFIRM.
In May 2016, Fulton was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
six counts of sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)–(b) (2015), with a different
minor victim identified in each count. He was found guilty after a jury trial on four of the
substantive counts and on the conspiracy count. The district court sentenced him to prison for
concurrent life terms.

We will analyze four issues. First, Fulton asserts the district court admitted evidence obtained
from his cell phone in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In February 2015, Galveston police obtained a search warrant on the Avenue L house where the
prostitution was based, but the warrant was part of a separate investigation into Fulton’s
narcotics activities. Fulton’s cell phone was seized. Nine days later, police obtained a second

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 61 2019 Edition