Court Opinion

ID: 4949778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-24 12:52:21.009922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:17.886963
License: Public Domain

McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. A remand in the present case is unnecessary because the record indicates only one prior forfeiture (of a pickup truck) on the part of BPG and no prior forfeitures on the part of SAS. This is insufficient to establish a pattern of conduct that would indicate that either BPG or SAS has intentionally allowed their vehicles to be used for illegally dispensing beer. Accordingly, I believe the forfeiture of the vehicles, valued at more than $100,000.00, to be an excessive fine and prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. I would reverse.