Court Opinion

ID: 9628862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:33:21.688465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:12.409616
License: Public Domain

Shearing, J.,
concurring:
I agree with the majority that the forfeiture does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause, but I do not agree with the finding that the forfeiture is not punitive. Although the forfeiture is punitive, it is not punishing anyone for the same offense as the criminal prosecution. I agree with Justice Kennedy who stated in his concurring opinion in United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2150 (1996) that “[t]he key distinction is that the instrumentality-forfeiture statutes are not directed at those who carry out the crimes, but at owners who are culpable for the criminal misuse of property.” These may or may not be the same persons. Therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not implicated.