518 U.S. 267 (1996)
In two consolidated appeals, the United States challenged the appellate court findings that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibited the government from both punishing a defendant for a criminal offense and forfeiting his property for that same offense in separate civil proceedings.
- Reversing the decisions, the Court held that the in rem civil forfeitures were neither punishment nor criminal for the purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The Court said that the forfeitures were designated as civil by Congress and proceeded in rem.
- Those facts established a presumption that the forfeitures were not subject to the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- Nevertheless, the Court looked for evidence indicating that the forfeitures were punitive, either in purpose or effect, as to be equivalent to a criminal proceeding.
- The Court found that they were not.
The Court reversed the two consolidated decisions.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure