Opinion ID: 2575863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: mitchell's eighth amendment argument

Text: ¶ 29 Mitchell argued at nisi prius that the statutory phrase found in close proximity to forfeitable substances [51] must be construed in a way that takes into account the entire statute and avoids an application that would violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. [52] He argues here that the State's reliance upon a police officer's affidavit which merely recites that money was one of many items found during a search following a routine traffic stop is an insufficient evidentiary basis for an inference of the money's actual use in violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. [53] ¶ 30 Claimant's argument is unavailing. This is so because at nisi prius he failed to show by counter-affidavit either that the value of forfeited currency was utterly out of proportion to the criminal act's gravity or that the forfeited currency bore no nexus to the Act's violation. [54] The State's evidentiary materials are clearly sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the claimant and to cast on the latter the burden to dispute by his own affidavit the evidentiary materials to be pressed in opposition to the State's forfeiture claim.