Court Opinion

ID: 9851780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:19:38.629309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:15.284235
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice,
dissenting.
To my mind, the court commits two significant errors in today’s decision. First, it ignores the thrust of its own precedents regarding the broad scope of the right to counsel guaranteed by Alaska’s Constitution. Second, it determines that so-called civil forfeiture proceedings arising out of allegedly criminal conduct do not constitute punishment. For reasons explained more fully below, I cannot agree with the court’s treatment of these issues.
Alaska’s Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have ... the assistance of counsel for his *295defense.” Alaska Const, art. I, § 11. This court has interpreted section 11 to confer greater protections than the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Compare Alexander v. City of Anchorage, 490 P.2d 910, 913-15 (Alaska 1971) (the right to counsel covers offenses for which the penalty may be incarceration, loss of a valuable license or those acts which bear the stigma of criminal conduct) with Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373-4, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 1161-1162, 59 L.Ed.2d 383, 389 (1979) (the right to counsel under the “Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution require[s] only that no indigent criminal defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless the State has afforded him the right to assistance of appointed counsel in his defense.”).
This court has expressed in unmistakable terms its commitment to identifying rights and privileges guaranteed by Alaska’s Constitution which go beyond what the federal law mandates. E.g., Baker v. City of Fairbanks, 471 P.2d 386, 401-03 (Alaska 1970). As the court boldly stated in Baker: “We need not stand by idly and passively, waiting for constitutional direction from the highest court of the land. Instead, we should be moving concurrently to develop and expound the principles embedded in our constitutional law.” Id. at 402 (footnote omitted). Accordingly, the court has not hesitated to extend the right to counsel to include a number of non-criminal proceedings. V.F. v. State, 666 P.2d 42 (Alaska 1983) (termination of parental rights); Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893 (Alaska 1979) (child custody); Reynolds v. Kimmons, 569 P.2d 799 (Alaska 1977) (paternity suits); Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537 (Alaska 1974) (civil contempt proceedings).
Against this backdrop is placed the civil forfeiture which arises out of allegedly criminal conduct.1 In attempting to classify this species of legal animal, courts have at times emphasized either its criminal or civil characteristics. For certain purposes claimants in these actions (those persons whose property is sought to be forfeited) receive the benefits of Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections normally associated with criminal proceedings. E.g., United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 91 S.Ct. 1041, 28 L.Ed.2d 434 (1971) (self-incrimination); One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965) (search and seizure); Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886) (self-incrimination and search and seizure). For other purposes, as the Supreme Court has recently explained, certain protections are unavailable to a defendant/claimant in a forfeiture action. United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984) (no double jeopardy or issue preclusion claims in the civil proceeding following an acquittal of the criminal charge).
Obviously, forfeiture is a hybrid creature, neither strictly civil nor strictly criminal. Yet this court has emphasized and embraced the criminal character of forfeitures when it announced that “[i]t is commonly understood that forfeitures, even when civil in form, are basically criminal in nature.” Graybill v. State, 545 P.2d 629, 631 (Alaska 1976). Numerous other tribunals have reached a similar conclusion. E.g., United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. at 718, 91 S.Ct. at 1043; One 1958 Plymouth Sedan, 380 U.S. at 700, 85 S.Ct. at 1250; Compton v. United States, 377 F.2d 408, 411 (8th Cir.1967); United States v. One Reel of 35 MM Color Motion Picture Film, 369 F.Supp. 1082, 1084 (E.D.N.Y.1972), aff'd, 491 F.2d 956 (2d Cir.1974); Fell v. Armour, 355 F.Supp. 1319, 1329 (M.D.Tenn.1972); State v. One 1978 Chevrolet Corvette, 8 Kan.App.2d 747, 667 P.2d 893, 896 (1983). Because the criminal nature figures so prominently in the forfeiture action, and because Alaska *296guarantees expansive nght-to-counsel opportunities, indigent defendants in forfeiture actions should receive the aid of appointed counsel.
To avoid reaching the preceding conclusion, the court advances the fictional proposition that forfeiture is not a form of punishment. The previous quote from Gray-bill indicates the court has concluded differently on another occasion. Today’s decision likewise acknowledges the “punitive component to the forfeiture laws.... ” Opinion at 292. I find it troubling that the court emphasizes “the strong deterrent aspect of the forfeiture laws,” Opinion at 292, suggesting thereby that deterrence and punishment are mutually exclusive. This is plainly untenable since one of the principal factors to be considered in administering our penal laws is the deterrence of future undesirable conduct. State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970); AS 12.55.-005(5). The court acknowledged in Chaney that the deterrent effect of a sentence is a key factor to be considered by a sentencing court. Chaney, 477 P.2d at 444. Deterrence does not lose its punitive character simply because it is called “civil” rather than “criminal.” The court should not base its holding on the erroneous theory that forfeiture is not punishment.
Equally troubling is the court’s abdication of its responsibility to examine the severity of a fine as an indication of the criminality of an offense. Even if the court is not prepared to hold that forfeiture is punitive in all cases, it should require determining whether forfeiture rises to the level of punishment in each case. This approach comports with established precedent. Baker’s definition of criminal prosecution includes “offenses which ... connote criminal conduct in the traditional sense of the term.” Baker, 471 P.2d at 402. The accompanying footnote explains that [a] heavy enough fine might also indicate criminality because it can be taken as a gauge of the ethical and social judgments of the community.” Id. at 402 n. 29. Courts should not divest themselves of their authority to judge the severity of a forfeiture on a case-by-case basis.
The only reason the court provides for distinguishing forfeiture of money from other fines is legislative intent. We should not be so willing to let a mere label foreclose judicial inquiry into the underlying nature of a legal proceeding. The substance of this area of the law should not be determined by semantics — not where penalties severe enough to be criminal are potentially involved.2 The court’s refusal to permit appointed counsel in forfeiture cases represents an unwarranted retreat from the expansive approach of Baker and Alexander.

. The court cavalierly presumes in footnote 21 that all those charged will be found guilty. The allusion to a claimant’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant because the issue involves determining the nature of the legal proceeding for purposes of establishing entitlement to appointed counsel. Furthermore, a claimant may have his property seized, and never recover it, even though criminal charges are never filed against him.

. It is also rather anomalous to provide counsel for indigent defendants who face the loss of a driver’s license, Baker, 471 P.2d at 402, but not for those who face loss of real property whose value may far exceed that of any license. Textually, neither the Alaska Constitution nor United States Constitution differentiates between the intrinsic worth of property versus liberty. To this extent, I share Justice Powell’s view that deprivation of property can be just as serious as deprivation of liberty insofar as the right to counsel is concerned. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 48, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 2018, 32 L.Ed.2d 530, 545 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring).