Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment

One of the most important limitations in civil asset forfeiture cases involves the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

A claimant “may petition the court to determine whether the forfeiture was constitutionally excessive.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(1). When making this determination, the court shall compare the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(2).

Section 983(g)(3) provides: “[t]he claimant shall have the burden of establishing that the forfeiture is grossly disproportional by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing conducted by the court without a jury.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(3).

If the court finds that the forfeiture “is grossly disproportional to the offense it shall reduce or eliminate the forfeiture as necessary to avoid a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(4).

Under 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(4), the Court must hold a hearing, without a jury, to determine whether the forfeiture is grossly disproportional under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. At the hearing, Claimant will have “the burden of establishing that the forfeiture is grossly disproportional by a preponderance of the evidence.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(4).

At this hearing, the government must make an initial showing that the connection between the property and the offense is more than a fortuitous or incidental one. If the government meets this instrumentality test, the burden shifts to the claimant to show that the forfeiture is grossly disproportionate in light of the totality of the circumstances.

In United States v. Wagoner County Real Estate, 278 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir.2002), the court listed numerous factors to be considered when determining whether a forfeiture is grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause including:

• the severity of the offense with which the property was involved;
  • the extent of both the claimant’s and the property’s role in the offense;
  • the nature and scope of the illegal operation at issue;
  • the personal benefit reaped by the claimant;
  • the value of any contraband involved in the offense;
  • the maximum sanction Congress has authorized for the offense;
• the culpability of the claimant;
• the harshness of the sanction imposed;
  • the value of the property forfeited, its function, and any other sanctions imposed upon the claimants by the sovereign seeking forfeiture.
• the general use of the forfeited property
• any previously imposed federal sanctions
• the benefit to the claimant
• the value of seized contraband
• the property’s connection with the offense

18 U.S.C. § 983(g) provides:

1. The claimant under subsection (a)(4) may petition the court to determine whether the forfeiture was constitutionally excessive.
2. In making this determination, the court shall compare the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture.
3. The claimant shall have the burden of establishing that the forfeiture is grossly disproportional by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing conducted by the court without a jury.
4. If the court finds that the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the offense it shall reduce or eliminate the forfeiture as necessary to avoid a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

This article was last updated on Friday, February 8, 2025.