After receiving information that Henry Jones was engaged in illegal drug sales, the local police made and monitored a controlled purchase of about $3,000 of methamphetamines from Jones at his residence using a confidential informant. Based on this information, the police obtained and executed a warrant to search Jones' residence. In the search, officers found and seized approximately 16 grams of methamphetamines, numerous plastic baggies, a set of triple beam scales, and $37,415 in cash located on the Mr. Jones and in his truck. The truck was located near the shed where most of the incriminating evidence was found. Jones was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamines, a controlled substance, with intent to distribute. Thereafter, the State of Georgia initiated civil in rem forfeiture proceedings against the $37,415 of currency pursuant to OCGA 16-13-49. After a trial, the trial court entered an order declaring the money forfeited, and Jones appeals. In his sole enumeration of error, Jones claims the forfeiture of the $37,415 was an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

What are the arguments for and against this forfeiture? Does it violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eigth Amendment? Does the forfeiture constitute a "punishment" and thus violate the Double Jeopardy clause? Note that the US Supreme Court has not declared any specific method for making the determination that a forfeiture is excessive. See Thorp v. State, 264 Ga. 713 (1994) for a three factor analysis as a minimum guideline in Georgia for determining if forfeiture was excessive. [ (1) whether harshness of penalty imposed by forfeiture of property is proportional to gravity of offense giving rise to forfeiture; (2) whether property had close enough relationship with offense to render it "guilty"; and (3) whether criminal activity involving use of property was extensive in terms of period of time property was used and/or spatial use of property.]

Does the fact that the money was found near the shed impact your decision? Why couldn't the truck also be seized? Wouldn't it have a "substantial connection" to the crime if that is where some of the drug transactions were made or is the fact that $34,000 was found in it enough? (Note: the federal and state courts have varying responses to whether a substantial connection is even needed, see p 19 of Chapter 15)

What changes in the fact pattern would change your opinion from being excessive to not excessive or vice versa? (e.g. change the possession of meth to marijuana, that Mr. Jones had AIDS and ran an AIDS hospice and he hated to use banks . . .)

Answer

The Court of Appeals, Andrews, J., held that forfeiture of money was not excessive fine in violation of Eighth Amendment.

SEE Shook v. State, 221 Ga. App. 151 (1996)