Double Jeopardy

Double Jeopardy

Criminal & DMV

The usual procedure in drunk driving cases is to proceed against the accused on two separate fronts: criminal prosecution and administrative license suspension. The end results, however, are similar: The client is punished. Does a criminal prosecution following an administrative license suspension (or vice versa) constitute double jeopardy?

The traditional view has been that it does not. This is usually rationalized on the pretext that license suspension, unlike criminal sentencing, is not punitive in nature. Thus, for example, in Ellis v. Pierce, 282 Cal. Rptr. 93 (Cal. App. 1991), the defendant was charged with drunk driving — and one week later his license was suspended for six months for refusing to submit to breath and blood alcohol testing. On appeal from the suspension hearing, he argued that the suspension constituted double jeopardy because of the previously filed DUI complaint.

The appellate court held that a person who had already been criminally prosecuted could not be subjected to a second civil sanction — unless that sanction was not punitive. The court then looked at the nature of a refusal license suspension and observed that since it could not be characterized as retribution, deterrence, or compensation to any party for a loss, it was not punitive.

What is Double Jeopardy DUI?

In the context of DUI (Driving Under the Influence) law, "Double Jeopardy" refers to a situation where a person is tried twice for the same offense. The concept of Double Jeopardy is derived from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime. However, there are exceptions to this principle, and one of them is when a person is being tried for the same offense by both state and federal authorities.

In the context of a "Double Jeopardy DUI," it could refer to a situation where a person is facing DUI charges at both the state and federal levels. This might occur if the alleged DUI offense took place on federal property (such as a national park or military base) and is therefore subject to federal jurisdiction, in addition to being subject to state DUI laws.

It's important to note that the specifics of DUI law and how Double Jeopardy applies can vary by jurisdiction, so it's always best to consult with a qualified attorney if you or someone you know is facing DUI charges.

If you have any questions about how double jeopardy may relate to your case, call The Law Offices Of Taylor & Taylor at (562) 330-4173 or fill out our online contact form today.

This approach, similar to the old view that driving is a privilege rather than a right, is simply unrealistic and unfair. The simple fact is that the individual is being prosecuted and punished twice. And in an appropriate case counsel should consider a plea or defense of “once in jeopardy”.

Note, however, that the court in Ellis was dealing with a case where the individual’s license was suspended for refusing to submit to chemical testing. In such a case, the person is not being prosecuted and punished twice for the same conduct: he is criminally prosecuted for drunk driving and civilly “prosecuted” for refusing to take a test. In an administrative per se suspension, however, a very different situation exists: His license is being suspended for the very same conduct for which he is being (or has been) criminally prosecuted.

Thus the focus in an administrative per se suspension, at least, should be on what constitutes as “punishment.” For if a license suspension is punishment, then clearly a plea or defense of double jeopardy would be appropriate.

Until a few years ago, civil sanctions did not constitute punishment. See United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984). However, that position was clearly abandoned in United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S. Ct. 1892, 104 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1989). In that drug forfeiture case, the Supreme Court held that “the labels ‘criminal’ and ‘civil’ are not paramount in determining whether a sanction constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes”:

The notion of punishment, as we understand it, cuts across the division between the civil and the criminal law, and for the purposes of assessing whether a given sanction constitutes multiple punishment barred by the Double jeopardy Clause, we must follow the notion where it leads. [490 U.S. 447-448.]

The Supreme Court then adopted a new test for determining whether a nominally civil sanction constitutes “punishment” for double jeopardy purposes:

A civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment … [Id. at 448.]

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this position four years later, emphasizing again that a sanction which is designed even in part to deter or punish will constitute punishment, regardless of whether it also has a remedial purpose. See Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 113 S. Ct. 2801, 125 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1993). Under Austin, in order to determine whether a forfeiture constitutes ‘punishment,’ it is necessary to consider the entire scope of the statute rather than just the characteristics of the property to be forfeited. The Court provided a three-prong approach to determining whether a civil sanction constitutes punishment:

“[T]he historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment” weighs heavily in favor of the conclusion that forfeiture continues to serve punitive purposes. [113 S. Ct. 2812.]

Is there a discernible punitive purpose from a “clear focus of [the statute] on the culpability of the individual”? [Id.; emphasis added.]

Had the legislative body passing the statute “understood those provisions as serving to deter and punish”? [Id.] Evidence of this is that the body “has chosen to tie forfeiture directly to the commission of’ the criminal offense.” [Id. at 2811; emphasis added.]

The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a key decision in this area. Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 –, 128 L. Ed. 2d 767, 114 S. Ct. 1937 (1994), involved a marijuana tax imposed by the state of Montana. The Court held that it violated double jeopardy for a defendant to be tried criminally for selling marijuana and then to be charged civilly for a failure to pay the tax. The fact that one proceeding was civil and one was criminal did not matter, the Court said, so long as they both involved the same offense and both were intended as punishment.

Shortly after Kurth Ranch, the Ninth Circuit extended this reasoning to civil forfeiture. In United States v. $405,089.23 US. Currency, et al., 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals was confronted with the question of whether the federal government violated the Double Jeopardy provisions of the Fifth Amendment by pursuing parallel proceedings against defendants for one course of conduct: (1) criminal prosecution for money laundering and conspiracy to manufacture drugs, and (2) civil forfeiture of property based on the same violations of law. The Court concluded:

“There can be little doubt that this case implicates the core Double jeopardy protection… The forfeiture complaint in this case was based on precisely the same conduct addressed in the claimant’s criminal case, and it sought to forfeit title to the claimants’ property on the basis of precisely the same violations of the same statutes. In short, this civil forfeiture action and the claimant’s criminal prosecution addressed the identical violations of the identical laws; the only difference between the two proceedings was the remedy sought by the government.”

Obviously, there is a clear parallel between the civil forfeiture of property in the discussed federal case and the civil “forfeiture” of a driver’s license in the case herein. In both cases, the government is attempting to punish the individual in the two different proceedings for the exact same conduct (in the instant case, for driving with .08 percent blood alcohol; the only evidence offered at D.M.V. suspension hearings consists of the identical police reports relied on by the prosecution in filing the criminal charges).

After considerable litigation — and contradictory rulings — on the issue across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court finally dealt a near-fatal blow to the double jeopardy defense in administrative-criminal cases. In Hudson v. United States, — 522 U.S. 93 — (1997), defendants appealed convictions for using their positions as bank officers to secure fraudulent loans three years after paying civil fines to a federal government agency for the same conduct. They based their double jeopardy claim on United States v. Halper. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, stated:

“We believe that Halper’s deviation from longstanding double jeopardy principles was ill-considered. As subsequent cases have demonstrated, Halper’s test for determining whether a particular sanction is punitive, and thus subject to the strictures of the Double Jeopardy Clause, has proved unworkable.”

Rehnquist then approved the traditional approach of considering (1) the expressed intent of the legislature, and (2) whether there is clear proof that a civil sanction is so punitive as to be criminal in nature.

The United States Supreme Court has refused to accept an ALR-DUI double jeopardy case for reasons not given. Jones v. Maryland, No. 95-1131, cert. denied (March 18, 1996).

Continue Reading Read Less

"Jeanne Normandeau is a great lawyer. She knows how the Riverside court judges work."

Jeanne Normandeau is a great lawyer. She knows how the Riverside court judges work. She will fight for you and will get you the best results after fighting with the judge and DA. She is honest and smart. Never had any problems, answers all questions and is always easy to contact. If you have the money, I recommend Jeanne. The public defender and judge will offer you the worst deal you can get.

Joe E.
"Won DMV hearing and got my case expunged for a minor issue"

Truly great team of lawyers. Handled everything the very best they could. Won DMV hearing and got my case expunged for a minor issue, so no record, as it should be! Can definitely rely on them.

Nick T.
"I would recommend this firm with no qualms!"

I received counsel in a sensitive legal matter from Lawrence Taylor Sr., and his advice was spot on. I did some research and I also know that the senior Mr. Taylor is in the top echelon in his field. He has written text books on DUI and he has taught the topic in law school. I would recommend this firm with no qualms!

Jerry S.
"This is a top level law firm. The Bible of DUI's comes from this firm!"

This is a top level law firm. The Bible of DUI's comes from this firm! These are the guys other attorneys call when they are stuck on a legal issue or need some guidance. There is no other firm or DUI attorney that has the kind of experience these folks do. I have practiced for a long time, and can tell you that when these guys walk into court the clients will fair 1000% better! Most attorneys do not have trial experience, and if your case must go that direction it's scary to see non experienced dui attorneys walking in with no experience. NOT these guys. Chris Taylor is one of the best trial attorneys I have ever seen; and a force to be reckoned with. The folks I have recommended have had nothing short of positive experiences. A DUI is nothing short of stressful, and can have such an impact on a persons life between restricted or no driving privileges, classes, the cost, and the general stress of it all. This law firm handles all of these issues with such ease, and most important you know you are the most well represented client in any court or DMV hearing

Tania C.
"Chris not only got me down to a Wet Reckless but was able to significantly reduce the penalties I would face."

Im am so glad that I read the reviews of Taylor and Taylor after my first "incident" and immediately contacted them. Chris was great at calming my nerves as this was my 1st offense and at a .06 it was right on the line on a trial or pleading it out. Chris not only got me down to a Wet Reckless but was able to significantly reduce the penalties I would face. His whole office staff was also very helpful and he returned my calls when I had questions if not the same day, the next. I plan on having my record expunged and will be going back to him for that. He attended all DMV and court hearings on my behalf which took A LOT of stress off me. I strongly recommend him.

Suzi J.
"Christopher always made me aware of what was going on with my hearings, and got me the best outcome possible."

When you need to get a lawyer, you aren't usually in a great situation. I wasn't at least. Christopher and his team never made me feel ashamed, they just help me get through a situation where sh*t happens. Christopher always made me aware of what was going on with my hearings, and got me the best outcome possible. He made things easy to understand, helped with the paperwork, and I while I *hope* to not have to seek his services again, I would highly recommend him and his team for anyone needing a lawyer!

Jessica S.
"Thankfully Mr. Taylor was able to help fight my case without me ever having to go to court"

You should never drink and drive anywhere, but especially don't do it in la Jolla! Cops down here have nothing better to do then make your life miserable. It is also a college town which adds assault to injury. I should take my own advice because I was recently arrested for a DUI down in La Jolla. A friend of mine referred me to Mr. Taylor's office and I am extremely glad I got into contact with them. I hardly blew over the legal limit and did perfectly fine on the sobriety tests but still was arrested. Thankfully Mr. Taylor was able to help fight my case without me ever having to go to court and I was able to have the charges dropped. Extremely professional law firm with the experience to get you the results you want.

Steven K.
"They will fight strategically to help you win your case."

These are the best lawyers in LA/OC when it comes to DUI cases. They will fight strategically to help you win your case. My Attoney Chris Taylor was impeccable in many aspects; one he interrogated the officer causing him to fumble with his initial statement; two he is well respected within the courtroom; three he keeps you well informed with everything he is doing and what you may need to do. I can't be more pleased with the outcome of his performance. Thank you God for Taylor and Taylor!

Kendall L.
"I have come across many attorneys in my life and I have never been treated as well as I have her"

I have come across many attorneys in my life and I have never been treated as well as I have here. Every phone call was returned in a timely and courteous manner. The first consultation was very professional, and my attorney Chris patiently answered every question I had. In situations like this, responsiveness is key and this firm never left me feeling uninformed. I was very satisfied with the outcome of my case and would definitely recommend this firm to anyone in need of a DUI defense attorney.

Anthony D.
"Mrs. Normandeau is by far the hardest-working and most diligent attorney I have ever met."

I cannot express enough gratitude towards Taylor and Taylor's Attorney, Jeanne Normandeau. I hired Mrs. Normandeau for a VERY messy DUI case. Not only did she approach it with the utmost professionalism, but also displayed a level of empathy that is unmatched in this profession.

Mrs. Normandeau is by far the hardest-working and most diligent attorney I have ever met. She could be reached if I ever needed to get ahold of her, whether it be email, call, or text. Not only was she available but was willing to talk about any questions I had or work through any legal issues. Mrs. Normandeau's unrelenting work, extensive preparation, and tireless advocacy were instrumental in successfully dismissing my case.

Bruce R.

SEE MORE REVIEWS

Orange County's Premier DUI Defense Attorneys

With an average of 32 years of experience, a top A-V rating, and a listing in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, the firm continues to be widely recognized as California’s premier DUI defense attorney's and has twice been recognized in the American Bar Association Journal for its specialization and unique technical support staff of former law enforcement, blood-alcohol and DMV experts.

SCHEDULE YOUR CONSULTATION

Want To Learn More?

CHECK OUT OUR EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS

VISIT OUR VIDEO LIBRARY

Tailored Defense For You

Whether you have questions or you’re ready to get started, our legal team is ready to help. Complete our form below or call us at (562) 330-4173.

First Name
Please enter your first name.
Last Name
Please enter your last name.
Phone
Please enter your phone number.

This isn't a valid phone number.
Email
Please enter your email address.

This isn't a valid email address.
Are you a new client?
Please make a selection.
How can we help you?
Please enter a message.
By submitting, you agree to be contacted about your request & other information using automated technology. Message frequency varies. Msg & data rates may apply. Text STOP to cancel. Acceptable Use Policy