Opinion ID: 836009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Federal Double Jeopardy Analysis

Text: We next consider whether exclusion under the ordinance is jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [11] The federal double jeopardy analysis is similar, but not identical, to the one that we have applied for purposes of Oregon's former jeopardy prohibition. Under the federal analysis, the reviewing court first asks whether the legislating body, in enacting the statutory scheme, indicated an intent to create either a civil or criminal sanction. See Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. at 99, 118 S.Ct. 488 (so stating). Then, if that inquiry reveals that the legislating body intended to create a civil sanction, the reviewing court considers whether the scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect    as to transform what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. Id. (citations omitted). In making that latter determination, courts have been instructed to consider the following seven factors: (1) `[w]hether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint'; (2) `whether it has historically been regarded as 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, 522 U.S. at 99-100, 118 S.Ct. 488 (quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168-69, 83 S.Ct. 554). Reviewing courts are reminded, moreover, that only the clearest proof will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. Hudson, 522 U.S. at 100, 118 S.Ct. 488. See also United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996) (stating clearest proof standard).