We constantly hear from our local, state and federal officials about their concern for “keeping us safe” from a plethora of mostly imaginative or government-created danger. This is probably not much different than the historical arguments made by previous dictators, kings, emperors, and presidents who have asserted that the number one priority of the state is to keep its subjects “safe.” Of course in doing so, the state must have the power to take away your liberties, whether it be in the form of suppressing speech they fear, invading privacy they have contempt for or the desire for your private property and wealth they believe they could put to better use. Now the good news . . . An Indiana man by the name of Tyson Timbs pled guilty to selling less than $300 in heroin to a cop. After pleading guilty to a crime with a maximum fine of $10,000, the State of Indiana hired a private law firm to seek forfeiture of his $42,000 vehicle he had purchased with the proceeds from a life insurance policy that was paid following his father’s death. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to stop this theft and “policing for profit.” However, the US Supreme Court unanimously rejected the taking of the vehicle proclaiming the forfeiture, in this case, as unconstitutional. This may have been a particularly egregious case, but this sort of “policing for profit” happens all over the country where prosecutors argue that a particular piece of property has some tenuous relationship to a crime, thus justifying confiscation/theft by law enforcement. In turn, law enforcement takes the “profit” from “policing,” and uses it to continue to violate our liberties . . . I mean . . . “keep us safe.” Anyway, hopefully, this case will curb some of the forfeiture abuses we see all across the country – particularly as it pertains to the farce the government calls – the “war on drugs.” Here is the full opinion from the US Supreme Court, if you have an interest in reading it: