Court Opinion

ID: 9669571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:00:08.857861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:42.473170
License: Public Domain

BERYL J. LEVINE, Surrogate Judge,
dissenting.
The majority focuses on the administrative character of Barth’s license suspension and its validity under our laws to buttress its conclusion that the suspension was remedial, not punitive. United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 447-48, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1901, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), however, teaches us that “[t]he notion of punishment ... cuts across the division between the civil and the criminal law” and that the label affixed to a proceeding or sanction is not controlling. Instead, courts must make a “particularized assessment” of the penalty imposed to determine whether it serves punitive or remedial ends. Id. Because I am persuaded that an administrative license suspension is punishment, I would hold that Barth’s criminal prosecution here was double jeopardy.
I therefore dissent, in adherence with my dissent in State v. Barnes, 545 N.W.2d 152 (N.D.1996).