Brief filed: 04/29/2024
Documents
Sparger-Withers v. Taylor
7th Circuit Court of Appeals; Case No. 24-1367
Argument(s)
Under Indiana law, “[a] prosecuting attorney may retain an attorney to bring a[ ] [civil forfeiture action]” and enter into a “compensation agreement” by which the private attorney may receive “compensation” for conducting the civil forfeiture action. Ind. Code § 34-24-1-8(a)–(b).
Allowing prosecutorial functions to be carried out by private citizens with readily apparent financial conflicts of interest inherently encourages overreach (or, at minimum, appears to do so), which harms not only targeted citizens, but the citizenry of Indiana writ large. That is because when the justice system appears to serve only the individuals who represent the government, the public will eventually lose confidence in the criminal justice system. That, in turn, has negative consequences for Indiana’s law enforcement community and, ultimately, the public. Moreover, private prosecutors financially motivated to prosecute individuals have been strongly disfavored from the earliest days of our Republic. That collective wisdom is embodied in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and this Court find Indiana’s forfeiture bounty system to be unconstitutional.
Author(s)
Nicole Henning and David J. Sandefer, Jones Day, Chicago, IL
