Your Rights Are Not a Revenue Stream. The Supreme Court Agrees. Law Enforcement Has Not Gotten the Memo.

NewsOnScale Staff

September 9, 2026

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that excessive fines and civil asset forfeiture violate the Eighth Amendment. The case was Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146. Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed on the outcome. Nine to zero.

Three years earlier the Court ruled in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) that warrantless blood draws from drivers suspected of DUI violate the Fourth Amendment.

In 2012 the Court ruled unanimously in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle to track its movements constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant.

The constitutional framework is clear. The enforcement of it is a different story.

What the Constitution Actually Says

The Founders were not subtle about their concerns with government using law enforcement as a revenue tool.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive fines. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking private property without just compensation.

The Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) held that a state may not convert a liberty into a licensed privilege and charge a fee for its exercise. The Court in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) held that if a state does convert a right into a privilege the citizen may ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.

Private travel — a citizen operating their own vehicle for personal purposes — is not commercial activity under federal statute. 18 U.S.C. Section 31 defines motor vehicle in a commercial context. The constitutional right to move freely within the United States has been recognized by the Supreme Court in multiple cases including Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).

What Actually Happens on American Roads

Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property — cash, vehicles, homes — without a criminal conviction. In many states the burden falls on the property owner to prove innocence to get their property back. The agency that seized the property often keeps a percentage of the proceeds.

The Institute for Justice documented that between 2000 and 2019 federal forfeiture funds collected over billion. State and local agencies collected additional billions through their own programs.

In 2014 the Washington Post documented that since 9/11 law enforcement had seized more than .5 billion in cash from people who were never charged with a crime under a federal program called Equitable Sharing.

Traffic fines have become a primary revenue source for municipalities — particularly in rural and low income communities. The Department of Justice's 2015 investigation of Ferguson, Missouri documented that the city's municipal court was designed to generate revenue rather than promote public safety. Officers faced quotas. Fines were stacked. Failure to pay led to arrest warrants and additional fines.

Ferguson is not unique. It is documented.

The Shift From Community to Revenue

American law enforcement was originally organized around the concept of community accountability. Sheriffs were elected. Deputies were often volunteers or part-time community members. The officer policing your road was your neighbor.

The professionalization of law enforcement over the 20th century brought legitimate improvements in training and consistency. It also created institutional interests — department budgets, overtime, equipment, pensions — that require revenue to sustain.

When department budgets depend on ticket revenue and asset forfeiture the incentive structure changes. The question shifts from how do we serve this community to how do we generate revenue from this roadway.

Speed traps in small municipalities are the most visible example. A town of 500 people with a police department that writes thousands of tickets per year to drivers passing through on state highways is not providing community policing. It is operating a toll.

What the Courts Have Said Most Recently

Timbs v. Indiana in 2019 was a landmark. Tyson Timbs was arrested for selling heroin to undercover officers. His maximum criminal fine under Indiana law was ,000. Indiana seized his ,000 Land Rover — purchased with proceeds from his father's life insurance policy, not drug money. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause applies to the states and limits civil asset forfeiture.

Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. 306 (2021) held that shooting someone constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure even if the person escapes.

Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194 (2021) held that police cannot enter a home without a warrant under a general community caretaking exception. Another unanimous decision limiting warrantless government intrusion into private spaces.

The Local Government Connection

Rural counties facing budget shortfalls have particularly strong incentives to use law enforcement as a revenue tool. When a county cannot fund its fire department, cannot retain paramedics, and faces significant budget shortfalls, the pressure to generate revenue through fines, fees, and forfeitures increases.

That pressure does not produce community policing. It produces revenue policing — enforcement activity calibrated to generate funds rather than protect residents.

The question worth asking at every county commission budget meeting is straightforward: what percentage of law enforcement activity in this county generates revenue for the county, and what percentage is directed at actual public safety threats identified by the community?

That question deserves a public answer.

What Has Been Lost

There is a reason volunteer fire departments still exist and function effectively in rural America. A volunteer firefighter is a community member protecting their own neighborhood. The accountability is direct and personal.

The further law enforcement moves from that model — toward professionalized departments with budget pressures, revenue incentives, and limited community accountability — the more it resembles what the Founders were trying to prevent: a standing force that serves institutional interests rather than the community it is supposed to protect.

The constitutional framework to address this exists. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed it. The distance between that framework and daily reality on American roads is the distance between what the Constitution promises and what government has been permitted to do.

That distance is worth documenting. It is worth reducing.

NewsOnScale is an independent media publication operated by AMILLI AI, CORP. JJ Johnson is the founder of AMILLI AI, CORP and a declared candidate for President of the United States in 2028. All Supreme Court cases cited in this article are publicly available at supremecourt.gov.