Opinion ID: 1741679
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: multiple punishment for same offense

Text: Thus, in analyzing whether administrative license revocation for refusal to submit to a chemical test constitutes punishment for purposes of double jeopardy, we must inquire (1) whether the Legislature intended the statutory sanction to be criminal or civil and (2) whether the statutory sanction is so punitive in purpose or effect as to transform what was clearly intended as a civil sanction into a criminal one. See Hudson v. U.S., supra . Whether the Legislature intended a civil or criminal sanction is a matter of statutory construction. See id. In analyzing whether the purpose or effect of the statute is so punitive as to negate the Legislature's intent, we look to the factors set forth in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra . See Hudson v. U.S., supra . We consider: (1) [w]hether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (2) whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment; (3) whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter ; (4) whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishmentretribution and deterrence; (5) whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime; (6) whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it; and (7) whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned. Hudson v. U.S., ___ U.S. at ___, 118 S.Ct. at 493, quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra . These factors are helpful, but certainly neither exhaustive nor dispositive, United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. at 249, 100 S.Ct. at 2641, and `must be considered in relation to the statute on its face,' Hudson v. U.S., ___ U.S. at ___, 118 S.Ct. at 493, quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra . Furthermore, only the `clearest proof' is sufficient to negate the Legislature's intent, rendering a civil sanction criminal. See id. See, also, Kansas v. Hendricks, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (indicating that such proof is heavy burden); U.S. v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996).