Opinion ID: 1096505
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: federal legal precepts applicable to a determination of whether a civil sanction constitutes punishment under a double jeopardy analysis

Text: A person cannot twice be placed in jeopardy for the same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V; LSA-Const. art. 1, § 15; LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 591; State v. Knowles, 392 So.2d 651, 654 (La.1980). LSA-Const. art. 1, § 15 provides, in pertinent part, that [n]o person shall be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. Amendment V of the United States Constitution, in pertinent part, provides that nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be put in jeopardy of life or limb. From our analysis of the language of these provisions and the constitutional history of the state provision, we conclude that the drafters and ratifiers of the state constitution did not intend for this court to define punishment for purposes of double jeopardy analysis any more broadly in favor of individuals subjected to the civil forfeiture of property than punishment has been construed by the United States Supreme Court in its recent cases. See Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994); Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993); United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989); VII Records of the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1973; Convention Transcripts, Sept. 7, 1973, at 1163-1173. As adopted in 1974, LSA-Const. art. 1, § 4 provided, in pertinent part, that [p]ersonal effects, other than contraband, shall never be taken. This provision was interpreted by this court as granting far-reaching protection to the rights of citizens to own and control private property. See State v. Spooner, 520 So.2d 336 (La.1988); State v. Manuel, 426 So.2d 140 (La.1983); State v. 1971 Green GMC Van, 354 So.2d 479 (La.1977). In 1989, the personal effects guarantee of the state constitution was amended to provide as follows: Personal effects shall never be taken. But the following property may be forfeited and disposed of in a civil proceeding, as provided by law: contraband drugs; property derived in whole or in part from contraband drugs; property used in the distribution, transfer, sale, felony possession, manufacture, or transportation of contraband drugs; property furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for contraband drugs; property used or intended to be used to facilitate any of the above conduct; or other property because the above described property has been rendered unavailable. In the present case, with respect to the definition of punishment for purposes of double jeopardy analysis in connection with civil forfeitures of property, Article 1, § 4 of the Louisiana Constitution grants no greater individual rights than Amendment V to the United States Constitution as currently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, we will apply those federal precepts in deciding the present case, which presents only the question of whether a civil forfeiture of property under the Drug Forfeiture Act is punishment for purposes of double jeopardy analysis. The double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions protect against three distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense. See U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. at 440, 109 S.Ct. at 1897, citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Butler v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 609 So.2d 790, 795 (La.1992). The instant consolidated cases involve only the third type of double jeopardy protection, namely protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. In analyzing a case to determine whether the third of these protectionsthe one against multiple punishmentshas been violated, it is necessary to resolve whether the particular sanction imposed upon a person for the same conduct constitutes punishment for this purpose. The precepts applicable to a determination of whether a civil sanction is punishment under a Fifth Amendment double jeopardy analysis are set forth in United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), and Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994). In Halper, the Supreme Court considered the double jeopardy implications of a fine levied in a civil proceeding on a felon subsequent to and based upon the same conduct as his criminal conviction. The government prosecuted and convicted the defendant on 65 counts of Medicaid fraud under the criminal false-claims statute, 18 U.S.C. § 287. Defendant was then sentenced to a term of imprisonment and fined $5,000.00. The government later filed a civil action against the defendant under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3731, exposing the defendant to potential civil liability of $130,000.00 on the 65 fraud counts, which had resulted in $585.00 in overcharges to the federal government. The Supreme Court explained that, although a civil remedy does not constitute punishment within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause merely because Congress provided for civil recovery in excess of the government's actual damages, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in a particular case, a civil penalty authorized by the Act may be so extreme and so divorced from the government's actual damages and expenses as to constitute punishment. The Supreme Court then devised a rule for determining whether, and under what circumstances, a civil penalty may constitute punishment for the purposes of the double jeopardy clause. Halper, 490 U.S. at 448, 109 S.Ct. at 1901. The Court held that a civil penalty may constitute punishment for purposes of double jeopardy analysis, but only if it meets two criteria. First, the civil penalty would have to impose a sanction overwhelmingly disproportionate to the damages the offender has caused. Second, the civil penalty would have to bear no rational relation to the goal of compensating the Government for its loss, i.e. the costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the violation. Halper, 490 U.S. at 449-50, 109 S.Ct. at 1902. The Supreme Court noted that this rule is for the rare case, such as the one presented in Halper, when a penalty provision subjects an offender to a sanction overwhelmingly disproportionate to the damages he has caused. Halper, 490 U.S. at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902. In Halper, the disparity between the district court's approximation of the government's loss of $585.00 together with the costs of investigation, prosecution, etc. and Halper's $130,000.00 liability was sufficiently disproportionate that the sanction constitutes a second punishment in violation of double jeopardy. Halper, 490 U.S. at 452, 109 S.Ct. at 1904. Nevertheless, the Court remanded the case to afford the government an opportunity to make an accounting of its actual costs arising from its prosecution of the defendant. Halper, 490 U.S. at 452, 109 S.Ct. at 1903-04. The Supreme Court reasoned that the government is entitled to rough remedial justice in that it may demand compensation according to somewhat imprecise formulas, such as reasonable liquidated damages or a fixed sum plus double damages, without being deemed to have imposed a second punishment for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis. Halper, 490 U.S. at 445-46, 109 S.Ct. at 1900. The Court in Halper explained that remedial justice is not an exact pursuit and that the government's damages and costs may be difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. Halper, 490 U.S. at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902. Inevitably, the process of affixing a sanction that compensates the Government for its costs involves an element of rough justice. Halper, 490 U.S. at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902. Where a defendant previously has sustained a criminal penalty and the civil penalty sought in the subsequent proceeding bears no rational relation to the goal of compensating the government for its losses and the civil remedy appears to qualify as punishment within the plain meaning of that word, then the penalty sought is not remedial and may constitute a second punishment for double jeopardy purposes. Halper, 490 U.S. at 448-49, 109 S.Ct. at 1902. Consequently, in making the assessment of whether a sanction imposed on an individual is punishment for double jeopardy purposes, the labels criminal and civil are not of paramount importance. Halper, 490 U.S. at 447, 109 S.Ct. at 1901. Rather, the rule is one of reason. Halper, 490 U.S. at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902. Further, a determination of whether a particular sanction is remedial is not determined from the perspective of the defendant because, for the defendant, even remedial sanctions carry the sting of punishment. However, it is the purposes actually served by the sanction in question that must be evaluated to determine whether a particular sanction constitutes criminal punishment. Halper, 490 U.S. at 447 n. 7, 109 S.Ct. at 1901 n. 7. A civil sanction that cannot fairly be said to serve a solely remedial purpose, but instead can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment. Under the prohibitions against double jeopardy, a defendant who already has been punished in a criminal prosecution may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent that the second sanction may not fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as a deterrent or retribution. Halper, 490 U.S. at 448-49, 109 S.Ct. at 1902. In Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), the Supreme Court interpreted 21 U.S.C. § 881 and held that, despite their nominal classification as civil proceedings, forfeitures under the statute constituted punishment for purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Austin pleaded guilty to one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of South Dakota state law. The prosecution stemmed from the defendant's sale of two grams of cocaine to an undercover Sioux Falls police officer in an automobile body shop. The defendant had obtained the cocaine from his mobile home parked nearby. After the guilty plea and imposition of sentence, the government attempted to seize the defendant's mobile home and automobile body shop by filing an in rem action for their civil forfeiture in federal district court. In granting the government's motion for summary judgment, the court rejected Austin's argument that forfeiture of his properties would violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable to in rem civil forfeitures. The Supreme Court held that a civil forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is a monetary punishment and, as such, is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2812. Because the Excessive Fines Clause limits the government's power to exact payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense, 509 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2805 (quoting Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 265, 109 S.Ct. 2909, 2915, 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989)), the question presented to the Court was whether the forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) was punishment. Austin, 509 U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2806. Therefore, whether a civil forfeiture is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause depends on whether the forfeiture, at least in part, serves to punish the defendant: [A] civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment as we have come to understand the term. Austin, 509 U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2812 (quoting Halper, 490 U.S. at 448, 109 S.Ct. at 1902). The Court explained that the forfeitures under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) were more clearly and quickly identifiable as punishment than the civil penalty in Halper in that: [i]n Halper, we focused on whether the sanction as applied in the individual case serves the goals of punishment. 490 U.S., at 448, 109 S.Ct., at 1902. In this case, however, it makes sense to focus on §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) as a whole. Halper involved a small, fixed-penalty provision, which in the ordinary case ... can be said to do no more than make the Government whole. 490 U.S., at 449, 109 S.Ct., at 1902. The value of the conveyances and real property forfeitable under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7), on the other hand, can vary so dramatically that any relationship between the Government's actual costs and the amount of the sanction is merely coincidental. See [ U.S. v. ] Ward, 448 U.S. [242], at 254, 100 S.Ct. [2636], at 2644 [65 L.Ed.2d 742]. Furthermore, as we have seen, forfeiture statutes historically have been understood as serving not simply remedial goals but also those of punishment and deterrence. Austin, 509 U.S. at ___ n. 14, 113 S.Ct. at 2812 n. 14. The Court reasoned that forfeitures, generally, and statutory in rem forfeitures, in particular, historically have been understood, at least in part, as punishment. Austin, 509 U.S. at ___-___, 113 S.Ct. at 2806-10. The Court further reasoned that §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) forfeitures are properly considered punishment because these sections clearly focus on the owner's culpability by expressly providing innocent owner defenses and by tying forfeiture directly to the commission of drug offenses. Moreover, the Court noted that the legislative history confirmed that the provisions serve to deter and to punish. Austin, 509 U.S. at ___-___, 113 S.Ct. at 2810-11. While declining to enunciate a test for determining when a forfeiture is constitutionally excessive, the Court in Austin held that in rem civil forfeitures under § 881 constituted punishment for purposes of the Eighth Amendment. [4] Thus, the Court interpreted Halper to prohibit a second sanction that may not fairly be characterized as remedial. Austin, 509 U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2812. In Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a tax on the possession of illegal drugs assessed after the state has imposed a criminal penalty for the same conduct violated the constitutional prohibition against successive punishments for the same offense. The Court noted that the features of the tax statute revealed its punitive character and distinguished it from taxes imposed primarily to raise revenue. Not only did the statute impose a remarkably high rate of taxation, but its imposition was conditioned on the commission and arrest for the conduct ultimately giving rise to the tax. Kurth Ranch, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1946-47. The tax was unusual because, although purportedly a species of property tax, it was levied on goods neither owned nor possessed by the taxpayer when the tax was assessed. Kurth Ranch, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1948. The Court concluded that the drug tax was fairly characterized as punishment and, under the double jeopardy clause, could not be assessed against the taxpayer after a criminal prosecution for the same offense had occurred. Kurth Ranch, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1948. The Supreme Court in Halper afforded guidance for federal double jeopardy analysis, but there have been many and varied interpretations of Halper, Austin, and Kurth Ranch. [5] This Court has adopted the Halper guidelines in cases outside the forfeiture arena. See e.g., Butler v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 609 So.2d at 795-96. [6] As noted earlier, the Halper analysis calls for application of the two-part test, namely, does the civil penalty (1) impose a sanction overwhelmingly disproportionate to the damages the offender has caused and (2) bear no rational relation to the goal of compensating the government for the costs it has incurred in investigating and prosecuting the violation. Halper, 490 U.S. at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902. Only if the specific penalty satisfies both of these conditions will it violate double jeopardy prohibitions. Halper and Austin demonstrate that civil sanctions may advance punitive and remedial goals at the same time. Accordingly, we conclude that, under the federal constitutional principles articulated in Halper, Austin, and Kurth Ranch, a civil sanction is prohibited to the extent, and only to the extent, that it cannot fairly be characterized as remedial. Conversely, to the extent that a remedial purpose is served, the civil sanction does not constitute punishment within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause, unless the sanction is in effect so disproportionate to the government's losses that it can be explained only as serving deterrent or retributive purposes. However, the rule is one of reason, namely, is the sanction not overwhelmingly disproportionate to the damages caused and does the sanction bear a rational relation to the goal of compensating the government for its loss. If the answers to these inquiries are in the affirmative, then, under our analysis of the Supreme Court opinions and other decisions, civil seizures or takings of property by the government will not constitute punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis. The Supreme Court has recognized that the forfeiture of contraband may be characterized as remedial because it removes dangerous or illegal items from society. Austin, 509 U.S. at at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2811; United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 364, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 1106, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984). In State v. Manuel, 426 So.2d at 144, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that there are two kinds of property which may be classified as contraband as follows: Things which intrinsically are illegal to possess and are therefore insusceptible of ownership are categorized as contraband per se. Such articles include illegal narcotics, unregistered stills, unlawful alcohol, and illicit gambling devices. Things which may be forfeited because they are the immediate instrumentalities of a crime, but which are not ordinarily illegal to possess, are classified as derivative contraband. Derivative contraband encompasses guns, automobiles, ships and other such property when used to effectuate a proscribed activity. See also Greenburg v. One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars in Cash, 517 So.2d 430, 431-32 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). Based on the Supreme Court decisions, federal and state appellate cases, and self evident principles, the civil divestiture of contraband per se or any direct or indirect proceeds of illegal drug sales, i.e., any property obtained from or traceable to the sale, exchange, or transfer of contraband drugs should not be characterized as either a forfeiture or punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis. The terms forfeiture and punishment are commonly used to mean the imposition of a loss by the taking away of some preexisting valid right without compensation, Black's Law Dictionary 650 (6th ed. 1990), and [a] deprivation of property or some right. Black's Law Dictionary at 1234. The government's taking of property in which the owner has never actually had a legal interest does not deprive the individual of property or any other right without compensation and thus should not be deemed punishment within the ambit of double jeopardy protections. After Halper and Austin, a majority of courts have held that the forfeiture of contraband per se or derivative contraband does not constitute punishment for the purpose of analysis under the double jeopardy clause. See United States v. United States Currency in the Amount of $145,139.00, 18 F.3d 73, 75-76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub. nom. Etim v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 72, 130 L.Ed.2d 27 (1994); United States v. Tilley, 93-1394 (5th Cir. 3/23/94); 18 F.3d 295, 297-300, cert. denied sub. nom. Tilley v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 574, 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); United States v. Borromeo, 1 F.3d 219, 221 (4th Cir.1993). Therefore, we conclude that the civil forfeiture of contraband per se or derivative contraband is not punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis. The government's taking of property in which the owner has never actually had a legal interest does not deprive the individual of property or any other rights without compensation and thus is not deemed punishment within the ambit of double jeopardy protections.