2005-11-30 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

appellate courts have consistently and repeatedly upheld the DUI forfeiture statute against Excessive Fines challenges using the three- pronged 'gross disproportionality' test announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Bajakajian. 524 U.S. 321 (1998) and used in State v. Rewitzer, 617 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. 2000): 1.) the gravity of the offense is compared to the harshness of the penalty; 2.) the value of the forfeiture is compared to fines for other crimes in the same jurisdiction; 3.) the value of the forfeiture is compared to forfeiture laws in other jurisdictions. The court upheld the forfeiture of an unencumbered $40,000 vehicle in City of New Brighton. supra. At least with respect to multiple offenders, the court seems to be saying that if the offender can afford to drive it, the offender can afford to lose it because of the grave danger that type of a driver poses to publiC safety. In Debra Jane Miller v. One 2007 Pontiac Aztek (City of Bloomington), 669 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. 2003), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the forfeiture of an unemployed person's $16,000 vehicle, despite her claim of indigency, did not violate the Excessive Fines clause of either the state or federal constitutions. However, the Court held that the 'instrumentality test' would not be the sole determining factor of excessiveness in this context. Rather, it held that courts must balance the gravity of the offense with the harshness of the penalty, looking at the relative harshness of the penalty compared to the state's other criminal penalties and compared to other states DUI forfeiture statutes. C. Equal Protection! Substantive Due Process In Hawes, supra, the court recognized that Equal Protection is an Inherent but unenumerated right found and confirmed in our state constitution and that it requires that people in similar circumstances be similarly treated under the law. When a statute, such as the DUI forfeiture statute, does not involve a suspect classification and does not infringe on a fundamental right, it need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose in order to withstand either an Equal Protection or Substantive Due Process challenge. The court has consistently found a rational relationship between the forfeiture and its legitimate governmental purpose of protecting the safety of the public from the known dangers of drunk drivers. This was even though the financial impact of a forfeiture can vary widely depending on the value of the vehicle. Additionally, that the government sees no financial gain from certain forfeitures does not impact this analysis because the goal is publiC safety not the generation of revenue. D. Taking of Private Property Without Just Compensation In Lukkason. supra, the court conclusively decided that the DUI 15 $