Jimmy A. Richardson, II, Solicitor for the 15th Judicial Circuit v. Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-One, U.S…

Summary

The court held that the state's civil asset forfeiture statutes are not facially unconstitutional under either due process or excessive-fines principles. The facial challenge failed because the statutes provide procedures for notice, a jury trial, and judicial determination, while the constitutional inquiries are generally fact-specific and suitable for as-applied challenges. The court also revised the excessive-fines analysis to require consideration of whether a forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to the underlying offense and remanded for a jury trial on the forfeiture petition.