Opinion ID: 2604674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Civil forfeiture cases distinguished

Text: Austin and Ursery were both civil forfeiture [4] cases arising from the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines. Thus, they arise in a different factual context and are analyzed under a completely separate and distinct constitutional clause. Nevertheless, each purports to discuss punishment for the purpose of the Eighth Amendment excessive fines clause. Austin involved a civil forfeiture proceeding against a body shop and mobile home after its owner pleaded guilty to a drug offense. The government defended its action under the excessive fines clause, claiming the civil forfeiture was not punishment and thus could not be an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Relying on Halper that civil proceedings may advance punitive and remedial goals, and, conversely, that both punitive and remedial goals may be served by criminal penalties, Austin, 509 U.S. at 610, 113 S.Ct. at 2806 (citing Halper, 490 U.S. at 447, 109 S.Ct. at 1901), the Court held: [T]he question is not, as the United States would have it, whether forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment. In considering this question, we are mindful of the fact that sanctions frequently serve more than one purpose. We need not exclude the possibility that a forfeiture serves remedial purposes to conclude that it is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. We, however, must determine that it can only be explained as serving in part to punish. Austin, 509 U.S. at 610, 113 S.Ct. at 2806 (emphasis added). Austin therefore seems to apply the Halper double jeopardy analysis to the excessive fines clause. Later Austin restates the same point: Fundamentally, even assuming that §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) serve some remedial purpose, the Government's argument must fail. Id. at 621, 113 S.Ct. at 2812. Austin therefore relies upon the same language in Halper which is relied upon by the respondents here, but in a forfeiture context. It emphasizes in footnote 14 that the nature of the inquiry is whether the sanction is simply or purely remedial (in which case it is not a punishment) or whether it has any punitive characteristics (in which case it must be considered a punishment for the purpose of the excessive fines clause). In Ursery a majority of the United States Supreme Court held civil forfeiture, an in rem proceeding, cannot be punishment for the purpose of the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution although it may be excessive for the purpose of the excessive fines clause. But for a fine to be excessive it must first be a fineand Ursery holds forfeitures are not fines. This may be debatable; however, it does not purport to affect the Court's previously established double jeopardy analysis. While careful to distinguish civil forfeitures from all other types of sanctions, a footnote to the majority opinion discusses the Halper case in the context of Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion. Ursery, ___ U.S. at ___ n. 2, 116 S.Ct. at 2145 n. 2. There the Court observed: Whether a particular sanction cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose is an inquiry radically different from that which we have traditionally employed in order to determine whether, as a categorical matter, a civil sanction is subject to the double jeopardy clause.... If the general rule of Justice Stevens were applied literally, then virtually every sanction would be declared to be a punishment: It is hard to imagine a sanction that has no punitive aspect whatsoever. The context of the footnote suggests the Court was primarily interested in stating even if civil forfeitures are purely or partially punitive that does not subject them to double jeopardy analysis in any event. In dissent Justice Stevens disagreed. Even so, it is clear the majority distinguished forfeitures from all other types of sanctions, drawing a sharp distinction between in rem forfeiture and in personam civil penalties. [5] Ursery, ___ U.S. at ___ _ ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2141-142.