Oregon
Supreme
Court
to
Review
Forfeiture
as
Double
Jeopardy
4/24/99
The Oregon Supreme Court recently agreed to review State vs. Selness, which concerns a 1994 marijuana arrest. In that case, the defendant's home was forfeited along with his receiving jail time. The defendant claims that his punishment was unconstitutional, on the grounds that it was a case of double jeopardy. The United States Constitution protects citizens from double jeopardy: being punished for the same offense twice. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that civil forfeiture is not a punishment, and therefore does not constitute double jeopardy. The Oregon State Constitution has a wider view on double jeopardy, however, and the Oregon Supreme Court has never previously ruled on civil forfeiture as a form of punishment, leaving the possibility that the court may rule in favor of the defendant. One day prior to the Court's agreement to review State vs. Selness, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned a previous ruling in a lower court that stated that the practice of excluding drug offenders from certain neighborhoods prior to sentencing is double jeopardy. (Visit Forfeiture Endangers American Rights, online at http://www.fear.org, for much more information about asset forfeiture. The Cato Institute is sponsoring a half-day conference, "Forfeiture Reform: Now, or Never?", on May 3, 9:00am - 1:30pm, Washington, DC, featuring US Rep. Henry J. Hyde, ACLU's Ira Glasser, and others. For further information, visit http://www.cato.org/events/ccs99/ on the web, call (202)218-4633 or e-mail [email protected].
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
