In Texas, the State can validly seize and possess non-evidential property allegedly connected with a crime by filing a civil forfeiture action. The State sues the thing at issue, not the suspect/defendant; example:
The State of Texas v. One (1) 1985 Ford Corvette Stingray. If such an action is filed, the suspect/defendant may contest the seizure. Whether or not the State files a forfeiture action, the suspect/defendant may attempt to utilize the bond provision of the Texas forfeiture statute asking the judge to return the thing.
The Dallas County DA's Civil Division has been aggressive using the Texas forfeiture statute. What happens after
Timbs v. Indiana (the new U.S. Supreme Court case at issue) depends on whether the thing fits within the "excessive punitive economic sanctions" test in
Timbs.
Unless stated otherwise in an opinion, "[T]o the extent that a judicial decision constitutes a new legal precedent, it will ordinarily be applied to all undecided cases that are subsequently litigated, regardless of whether the relevant events occurred before or after the new precedent was announced." See:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/politic...cial-decisions
This means that if a civil forfeiture case is active, or if forfeiture is used in the future, the holding of
Timbs applies. If not, it doesn't.
SCOTUS' Property Seizure Ruling
