As if driving expensive cars were not enough of a thrill, a recent ruling from the Fifth District Appellate Court may have upped the ante by adding another benefit: the cost of your car might be a defense against forfeiture of your car.
In a recent case, the Fifth District was faced with the issue of whether it was lawful to seize a Harley-Davidson trike that was driven by a drunk driver, but owned by its sober passenger. The court said it was a “harsh penalty,” out of step with the seriousness of the offense, and in violation of the defendant’s Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unjust punishment.
In this case, the state seized the trike because the driver’s driving privileges were revoked at the time for a previous DUI. In court, the driver pleaded guilty to the DUI, but the owner objected to the seizure of the trike, arguing that it represented an unjust $35,000 fine.
At trial, Crawford County Circuit Court Judge Christopher Weber ruled in favor of the State, saying that a key issue was whether the passenger had granted permission to the driver, her husband, to drive the trike. The trial court ruled that she had granted permission and that thus the trike could be seized, saying “she got on the motorcycle and they took off and the evidence is that they live about 12 blocks away so…it’s not as if they were out on the interstate 50 miles from home where it would be impossible for her to find another way home.”
The appellate court did not disagree with Judge Weber, but instead ruled on a different issue, saying that it didn’t matter if permission was involved. If the item seized, the trike in this case, was disproportionately valuable compared to the crime at issue, DUI in this case, the seizure of the item would have to be reversed. And that’s exactly what happened here. “This case involves personal property, a $35,000 motorcycle, and there is no evidence in the record concerning [the claimant’s] general financial situation. However, the monetary value of the motorcycle alone is sufficient to make the forfeiture a harsh penalty,” the court wrote.
It’s unclear what the effects of this ruling will be. Does it mean that any car that is seized will require an Eighth Amendment analysis? Is there a definitive scale that courts can refer to when making that analysis? Are some forfeitures treated differently than others?
We’ve talked about other strange DUI laws in the state on this blog, but this ruling seems especially odd. Forfeiture experts note that while the ruling is technically sound, they’ve never seen an Eighth Amendment ruling used in quite this way, to say nothing of the strange logical turn. But nevertheless this is at least one way that people can mount a defense against forfeiture.
Stay tuned; we’ll keep you updated on this ruling as new information becomes available. And as usual, if you have any legal questions, do not hesitate to contact us. One of our skilled team members will be happy to assist you.
