MARION, Ind. — Tyson Timbs works in a machine shop. He is a self-described former heroin junkie living with his aunt in a small home with two dogs. Inspirational messages — in the house, on his clothes and on a tattoo — help sustain his recovery.

It is a modest existence. That said, Timbs, 37, could see his name live on for decades in constitutional law. He is the plaintiff in a closely-watched case with far-reaching implications that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Nov. 28.

Five years ago, Timbs pleaded guilty to selling $260 worth of heroin and had his $42,000 Land Rover taken by the government in a process known as "civil asset forfeiture," which allows police to seize and keep property alleged to have been used in a crime.

Indiana government:Forfeiture bill faces almost certain death

Legal system:Federal judge strikes down part of Indiana's vehicle seizure law

By Indiana law, however, the maximum fine for Timbs' crime was $10,000 — well below the value of seized vehicle.

That started Timbs on an unlikely journey through Indiana's court system and into the U.S. Supreme Court. Lawyers for Timbs and the defendant, the State of Indiana, will argue whether Eighth Amendment protection from "excessive fines" applies to civil forfeitures at the state level.

Ian Samuel, an associate professor at Indiana University's Maurer School of Law, said the case is important. That's because most of the Bill of Rights is "incorporated," meaning it applies to states. For example, the First Amendment right to free speech is incorporated to the states.

"There’s very little that isn't," Samuel said. "When you have a case like this, it’s rare. It could provide a vehicle to constitutional challenges to forfeiture."

Timbs received about $75,000 from a life insurance policy after this father died. He bought the Land Rover and spent much of what was left on drugs.

Timbs said the only two times he sold heroin was to police. He used the Land Rover to buy drugs in Richmond. He was driving the Land Rover when police arrested him. He served a year of home detention, five years of probation and he paid the court-ordered fees.

"I sold a couple hundred dollars worth of dope to the cops," Timbs said. "Nobody got hurt. They never arrested one person who said they got drugs from me because there isn't anyone. I was an addict. It was a couple hundred dollars worth of drugs. I didn't hurt anybody. I'm not a violent offender."

He added, "I'm a junkie and they were treating me like a kingpin."

A dissent in the Indiana Appeals Court took a different side. While still acknowledging occasional overreach by law enforcement on asset forfeitures, judge Michael P. Barnes said Timbs needed to pay for his crime.

"It seems to me that one who deals heroin ... must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself," Barnes wrote.

The case moved to the Indiana Supreme Court, which ruled against Timbs, saying that until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in, it won't stop civil forfeitures alleged to be excessive.

The libertarian Institute for Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. Timbs was at work earlier this year when a text message said that his was among the small percentage of cases the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear.

"I'm excited," he said. "I like history. For me to go to the Supreme Court is really cool. The thought of being in the same room with Supreme Court justices is incredible."

Attorney Wesley Hottot, who will argue for Timbs before the U.S. Supreme Court, said abuses of forfeiture in Indiana are unique nationally.

"This is the only state in the nation where prosecutions for civil forfeiture can be outsourced to private law firms who then work on contingency based on how much property they forfeit," Hottot said. "Tyson's case, this very case, was brought by a private law firm working on contingency. We have to ask ourselves if these types of cases would even be brought if the prosecutor wasn't financially self-interested."

Liberals and conservatives dislike civil asset forfeiture, which will make it hard for the state to win the upcoming case. Liberals don't like "policing for profit." Conservatives don't like government exercising power to take private property. The liberal American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative United States Chamber of Commerce filed friend of the court briefs supporting Timbs.

"The only people who really like civil forfeiture is cops," said Samuel, the IU professor, "because they can seize stuff and use money to fund the department."

Indiana solicitor general Thomas Fisher, who will argue for the state, acknowledged that he's the underdog. But he said he will present a vigorous defense, including the question of whether civil asset forfeitures should be treated the same as criminal fines in asset forfeitures.

"You play the hand you're dealt," Fisher said. "We are realistic about our chances, but we think we have some powerful arguments to make."

Timbs plans to be in the courtroom during the argument with his girlfriend. He has long since written off getting back the Land Rover. He said he used to pass it in a parking lot in Pendleton on his way to work, but doesn't know where it's at now. A spokesperson for the Attorney General's office said the vehicle is in a covered impound in Marion.

While on house arrest, Timbs said, he spent lots of time learning about civil forfeiture law and how it has affected other people, too.

Timbs said he still owes money to lawyers, but the case is about principle.

"That's the reason I haven't given up," he said. "I've wanted to, believe me. It's been a lot of stress. Sometimes, I just want it all to be done. I'm tired of dealing with it. But I started something and if I can maybe make a difference, help somebody in my situation, it's going to be worth it."

Contact Mark Alesia at 317-444-6311 or mark.alesia@indystar.com. Follow him on Twitter: @markalesia.