Yamhill County v. Real Property

82 November 21, 2024 No. 41

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

YAMHILL COUNTY,

a political subdivision of the State of Oregon

and forfeiting agency, on behalf

of the Yamhill County Interagency Narcotics Team

(YCINT) seizing agency,

Petitioner on Review,

v.

REAL PROPERTY

COMMONLY KNOWN AS:

11475 NW PIKE ROAD, YAMHILL, OREGON,

YAMHILL COUNTY AND ANY RESIDENCE,

BUILDINGS, OR STORAGE FACILITIES

THEREON,

Defendant in rem,

and

Sheryl Lynn SUBLET,

Respondent on Review.

(CC 18CV37372) (CA A173574) (SC S070217)

On review from the Court of Appeals.*

Argued and submitted December 14, 2023.

C. Robert Steringer, Harrang Long, P.C., Portland,

argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on review.

Also on the briefs was Erica R. Tatoian.

Zachary J. Stern, Zachary J. Stern, P.C., Salem, argued

the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review.

Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, Salem, filed the

briefs for amicus curiae State of Oregon. Also on the brief

were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin

Gutman, Solicitor General.

______________

* Appeal from Yamhill County Circuit Court, Ladd J. Wiles, Judge. 324

Or App 412, 526 P3d 765 (2023).

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 83

Rebeca A. Plaza, Capitol Legal Services, Salem, filed the

brief for amici curiae Association of Oregon Counties, City of

Keizer, City of Salem, City of Springfield, City of Medford,

League of Oregon Cities, and Oregon Narcotics Enforcement

Association. Also on the brief was Aaron P. Hisel.

Rosalind M. Lee, Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers

Association, Eugene, filed the brief for amicus curiae

Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Also on

the brief were Daniel C. Silberman and Stacy M. Du Clos;

Gabe Newland and Aliza Kaplan, Portland, for amicus

curiae Criminal Justice Reform Clinic at Lewis & Clark

Law School; and Kelly Simon, Portland, for amicus curiae

American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon.

Franz Bruggemeier, Oregon Justice Resource Center,

Portland, filed the brief for amici curiae Oregon Resource

Justice Center and National Police Accountability Project.

Also on the brief were Lauren Bonds, Keisha James, and

Eliana Machefsky, National Police Accountability Project,

New Orleans, Louisiana.

Christian Zupancic, Zuplaw Law Firm, LLC., Seaside,

filed the brief for amicus curiae Institute for Justice. Also on

the brief was Wesley Hottot, Institute for Justice, Seattle,

Washington.

Before Flynn, Chief Justice, and Duncan, Garrett,

DeHoog, James, and Masih, Justices, and Walters, Senior

Judge, Justice pro tempore. **

FLYNN, C.J.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and

the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further

proceedings.

______________

** Bushong, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

case.

84 Yamhill County v. Real Property

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 85

FLYNN, C.J.

Oregon law allows local governments to acquire prop-

erty that is connected to certain criminal conduct by bring-

ing a civil forfeiture action against the property itself—a

so-called in rem action. See ORS 131A.225 (authorizing and

describing use of “civil forfeiture action in rem” for prop-

erty subject to forfeiture). For the in rem action, no person is

named as a defendant, but the forfeiting entity must make

“reasonable efforts” to notify potential claimants “known to

have an interest” in the property. ORS 131A.150(4). And if

a claimant chooses to oppose the forfeiture, then the local

government must prove that “a person has been convicted of

a crime that constitutes prohibited conduct” (generally drug

crimes and human trafficking crimes) and that the property

to be forfeited is proceeds of, or an instrumentality of, either

the crime for which the person has been convicted or another

crime that is similar. ORS 131A.255; see ORS 131A.005(12)

(defining “prohibited conduct”). But see ORS 131A.200(1) and

ORS 131A.315 (permitting forfeiture without proof of con-

viction if no claimant appears to oppose the forfeiture). The

statutory forfeiture process aligns with limitations that the

Oregon Constitution imposes on the use of “civil forfeiture” by

“the State or any of its political subdivisions.” Or Const, Art

XV, §10; ORS 131A.010(2) (specifying that “[a]ll forfeitures

under the provisions of this chapter are subject to the limita-

tions of section 10, Article XV of the Oregon Constitution”).

The question in this case is whether civil forfeiture

in Oregon is effectively a criminal penalty for purposes of

the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, such

that a civil forfeiture action is barred by—and bars—a sep-

arate criminal prosecution of the property’s owner for the

same prohibited conduct.1 The arguments present a facial

challenge to the overall civil forfeiture scheme, and we

reject that challenge. We conclude that the civil forfeiture

authorized by ORS chapter 131A does not facially trigger

the protections of the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy

Clause.

1

The federal Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall “be sub-

ject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” US Const,

Amend V.

86 Yamhill County v. Real Property

I. BACKGROUND

In this civil forfeiture case, Yamhill County filed

an in rem action against real property located on NW

Pike Road, alleging that the defendant property had been

used to facilitate prohibited conduct and that Sheryl Lynn

Sublet (claimant), had asserted an interest in the property.

Claimant appeared in the action and opposed the forfeiture

on numerous grounds, including that the forfeiture action

was barred under the federal Double Jeopardy Clause

because claimant already had been prosecuted for the same

prohibited conduct. The trial court rejected claimant’s double

jeopardy argument, a jury found in favor of the county, and

the trial court entered a judgment forfeiting the defendant

property to the county. But the Court of Appeals reversed.

It agreed with claimant that the forfeiture implicates, and

is barred by, the federal prohibition against double jeopardy.

This court allowed the state’s petition for review to deter-

mine whether the forfeiture proceeding implicates the fed-

eral Double Jeopardy Clause.

The arguments in this court present a narrow

question, and we clarify what is not at issue. First, claim-

ant does not contend that any provision of the state or fed-

eral constitution precludes the legislature from authorizing

civil in rem forfeiture of property that is an instrumentality

of “prohibited conduct.” Second, she does not advance any

argument under the state constitution—not under the dou-

ble jeopardy clause contained in Article I, section 12, nor

under any other provision. Third, as indicated above, claim-

ant presents a facial challenge that the overall forfeiture

scheme under Oregon law is criminal. Accordingly, the only

question presented by this case is whether civil forfeiture

actions under Oregon law place an owner of the property

in “jeopardy” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, in all

instances, without regard to the individual circumstances

of the particular case.2

2

Under the “first things first” doctrine, “this court has frequently stated a

preference for resolving disputes under state law, including the state constitu-

tion, if possible.” State v. Link, 367 Or 625, 640, 482 P3d 28 (2021). Although we

do not let the parties’ choice of argument dictate whether we adhere to that doc-

trine, claimant’s arguments have proceeded exclusively as a challenge under the

federal constitution, and the Court of Appeals resolved this case as a matter of

federal constitutional law. We allowed review to determine whether that decision

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 87

It is not a novel question. As the United States

Supreme Court has emphasized, “[s]ince the earliest years

of this Nation, Congress has authorized the Government

to seek parallel in rem civil forfeiture actions and crimi-

nal prosecutions based upon the same underlying events.”

United States v. Ursery, 518 US 267, 274, 116 S Ct 2135, 135

L Ed 2d 549 (1996). And, in “a long line of cases,” the Court

“has considered the application of the Double Jeopardy

Clause to civil forfeitures, consistently concluding that

the Clause does not apply to such actions because they do

not impose punishment.” Id. This court reached the same

conclusion when we last considered the application of the

Double Jeopardy Clause to a civil forfeiture proceeding, in

State v. Selness, 334 Or 515, 542, 54 P3d 1025 (2002).3

But the statutes that we considered in Selness

have been replaced by the new civil forfeiture statutes set

out in ORS chapter 131A, which the legislature adopted in

2009 to align with the new constitutional limitations that

voters originally adopted in 2000 and then amended in

2008. See Or Const, Art XV, § 10 (describing limits on the

government’s ability to pursue “civil forfeiture”); Or Laws

2009, ch 78 (adopting provisions now set out at ORS chapter

131A). In this case, the Court of Appeals was persuaded that

those changes to civil forfeiture in Oregon permit a differ-

ent conclusion than this court reached in Selness. The court

held that the voters who originally adopted Article XV, sec-

tion 10, intended to make all forfeiture “criminal in nature

for [the] purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth

Amendment” and, as a result, that a forfeiture proceeding

under current Oregon law implicates that provision. Yamhill

County v. Real Property, 324 Or App 412, 428, 526 P3d 765

(2023). We allowed review to consider whether the new con-

stitutional or statutory provisions have converted civil for-

feiture in Oregon to essentially a criminal punishment that

places the property owner in “jeopardy” for purposes of the

Fifth Amendment.

was correct and, thus, exercise our discretion to resolve this case under the fed-

eral constitution, leaving any state constitutional questions for another day.

3

The defendants in Selness also argued that the forfeiture implicated the

double jeopardy protections under Article I, section 12, of Oregon’s constitution,

and the opinion primarily is devoted to explaining why the forfeiture did not

constitute “jeopardy” for purposes of Oregon law. 334 Or at 523-40.

88 Yamhill County v. Real Property

II. DISCUSSION

The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause,

among other things, prohibits a government from “ ‘attempt-

ing a second time to punish [a person] criminally for the

same offense.’ ” Ursery, 518 US at 273 (quoting Witte v. United

States, 515 US 389, 396, 115 S Ct 2199, 132 L Ed 2d 351

(1995)). Under limited circumstances, the Supreme Court

has held that a civil action to punish a person implicates

the Double Jeopardy Clause, but the Court consistently has

drawn “a sharp distinction” for double jeopardy purposes

between so-called in personam civil penalty actions and in

rem civil forfeiture actions brought against property itself.

Id. at 275. The distinction is captured by a “remarkably con-

sistent theme” in the Court’s cases: “In rem civil forfeiture is

a remedial civil sanction, distinct from potentially punitive

in personam civil penalties such as fines, and does not con-

stitute a punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause.”

Id. at 278; see Various Items of Personal Property v. United

States, 282 US 577, 580-81, 51 S Ct 282, 75 L Ed 558 (1931)

(explaining distinction between in rem civil forfeitures and

in personam civil penalties).

A. A “Remarkably Consistent Theme”: In Rem Civil

Forfeitures Are Not Punishment

The Court first drew that “sharp distinction” in

Various Items, in which the Court considered whether an in

rem civil forfeiture action, which followed the owner’s prior

criminal conviction for the same actions, was barred by the

Fifth Amendment. 282 US at 581. And in Ursery, the Court

highlighted the distinction between in rem and in personam

civil proceedings by pointing to United States v. La Franca,

282 US 568, 51 S Ct 278, 75 L Ed 551 (1931)—another deci-

sion that was issued the same day as Various Items—in

which it had held that a civil, in personam, action against

a taxpayer to recover taxes was “ ‘punitive in character and

barred by a prior conviction of the defendant for a criminal

offense involving the same transactions.’ ” Ursery, 518 US

at 275 (quoting Various Items, 282 US at 580). By contrast,

the Court emphasized, the action in Various Items was “ ‘a

proceeding in rem to forfeit property used in committing an

offense’ ” and did not implicate the prohibition against double

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 89

jeopardy because an in rem forfeiture against the property

itself “ ‘is no part of the punishment for the criminal offense.’ ”

Id. (quoting Various Items, 282 US at 580-81 (emphasis in

Ursery)).

The line drawn by the Court in Various Items is

not between forfeiture and other sanctions, but between in

personam forfeiture actions against a property’s owner and

in rem forfeitures against property. See Dobbins’ Distillery

v. United States, 96 US 395, 399-400, 24 L Ed 637 (1877)

(describing the two types of forfeitures). In “the Middle Ages

and at common law[,]” an in personam forfeiture action was

considered “part of the punishment imposed for felonies and

treason.” United States v. Bajakajian, 524 US 321, 332, 118

S Ct 2028, 141 L Ed 2d 314 (1998). An in rem civil forfeiture,

by contrast, “has not historically been regarded as punish-

ment, as [the Court has] understood that term under the

Double Jeopardy Clause.” Ursery, 518 US at 291. In fact, as

the Court observed in Ursery, “[h]ad the Court in Various

Items found that [an in rem] civil forfeiture could constitute

a ‘punishment’ under the Fifth Amendment, its holding

would have been quite remarkable.” 518 US at 275. The rea-

son is that, “at common law, not only was it the case that a

criminal conviction did not bar a civil forfeiture, but, in fact,

the civil forfeiture could not be instituted unless a crimi-

nal conviction had already been obtained.” Id. (emphases in

original).

An early rationale given for the rule that in rem for-

feitures do not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause was

that “[i]t is the property which is proceeded against, and,

by resort to a legal fiction, held guilty and condemned as

though it were conscious instead of inanimate and insen-

tient.” Various Items, 282 US at 581. The Court has also

pointed to the nature of an in rem action, in which jurisdic-

tion is “dependent upon seizure of a physical object,” rather

than on acquiring jurisdiction over a person. United States

v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 US 354, 363, 104 S Ct

1099, 79 L Ed 2d 361 (1984). Such forfeitures, the Court has

observed, are structured “to be impersonal by targeting the

property itself.” Ursery, 518 US at 289. The Court also has

attributed the rule to an understanding that civil in rem

90 Yamhill County v. Real Property

forfeitures are “remedial in nature,” in a way that criminal

punishment is not. 89 Firearms, 465 US at 366. Remedial

justifications that have been advanced for civil forfeiture

include preventing property from being used for illegal pur-

poses, removing potentially dangerous items from circula-

tion, ensuring that persons do not profit from their illegal

acts, and making criminal activity unprofitable. See Ursery,

518 US at 290-91 (highlighting that forfeiture at issue

served “nonpunitive goals” of ensuring that property is not

used for illegal purposes and, in the case of proceeds, ensur-

ing “that persons do not profit from their illegal acts”); 89

Firearms, 465 US at 364 (emphasizing that the civil forfei-

ture of firearms “further[ed] broad remedial aims,” includ-

ing “discouraging unregulated commerce in firearms” and

“[k]eeping potentially dangerous weapons out of the hands

of unlicensed dealers”); Bennis v. Michigan, 516 US 442,

452, 116 S Ct 994, 134 L Ed 2d 68 (1996) (explaining that

“[f]orfeiture of property prevents illegal uses * * * by impos-

ing an economic penalty, thereby rendering illegal behavior

unprofitable” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also

State v. Curran, 291 Or 119, 127-28, 628 P2d 1198 (1981)

(explaining traditional purpose of in rem forfeiture as “not

merely to punish criminal activity but to make it unprof-

itable” by “removing equipment necessary to the carrying

on of the illegal activity and recouping some of the costs of

law enforcement,” as well as generally deterring criminal

activity).

Regardless of the rationale, however, the Court’s

cases over the last century have continued to adhere to the

“remarkably consistent theme” that “[i]n rem civil forfeiture

is a remedial civil sanction, * * * and does not constitute a

punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Ursery, 518

US at 278. Four decades after Various Items, the Court next

revisited the theme in the context of a double jeopardy chal-

lenge to the civil forfeiture of jewels, under the Tariff Act

of 1930, after the owner had been acquitted on charges of

smuggling the jewels into the country. One Lot Emerald Cut

Stones v. United States, 409 US 232, 233, 93 S Ct 489, 34

L Ed 2d 438 (1972). The brief per curiam opinion observed

that “Congress could and did order both civil and criminal

sanctions” for violations of the Act and that, “[i]f for no other

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 91

reason, the forfeiture is not barred by the Double Jeopardy

Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it involves nei-

ther two criminal trials nor two criminal punishments.”

Id. at 235-36. Ursery explains that the forfeitures in One

Lot “were not criminal punishments because they did not

impose a second in personam penalty for the criminal defen-

dant’s wrongdoing.” 518 US at 276. In other words, the Court

has—without exception—held that the protections of the

Double Jeopardy Clause do not apply to in rem civil forfei-

ture actions, without regard to whether the forfeiture comes

before or after a related criminal prosecution, and without

regard to whether the prosecution ends with an acquittal or

conviction.

But the Court’s most recent decisions have settled

on a rule for civil forfeiture that arguably allows for at least

the possibility that even an in rem forfeiture labeled “civil”

might, under some circumstances, implicate double jeop-

ardy protections:

“ ‘Unless the forfeiture sanction was intended as punish-

ment, so that the proceeding is essentially criminal in

character, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not applicable.

The question, then, is whether [the] * * * forfeiture proceed-

ing is intended to be, or by its nature necessarily is, crimi-

nal and punitive, or civil and remedial.’ ”

Ursery, 518 US at 277 (quoting 89 Firearms, 465 US at 362).

The Court’s application of that rule provides no examples

of what could make an in rem forfeiture “essentially crim-

inal in character” but, instead, provides multiple examples

of what does not.

B. The Court’s Two-Part Inquiry

To answer the question at the heart of that rule,

the Court in 89 Firearms distilled a two-part inquiry that

“provides a useful analytical tool” for determining whether

a forfeiture proceeding is punishment that implicates the

Double Jeopardy Clause. Ursery, 518 US at 288. Under that

two-part inquiry, the Court first considers whether those

who created the forfeiture proceeding intended it to be crim-

inal or civil. Id. The Court next considers whether the pro-

ceeding, even if intended as civil, is “so punitive in fact as to

92 Yamhill County v. Real Property

‘persuade [the Court] that the forfeiture proceeding[s] may

not legitimately be viewed as civil in nature,’ despite” the

intent. Id. (quoting 89 Firearms, 465 US at 366). The Court

has emphasized, however, that, “[t]hough the two-part ana-

lytical construct employed in 89 Firearms was more refined,

perhaps, than that we had used over 50 years earlier in

Various Items, the conclusion was the same in each case: In

rem civil forfeiture * * * does not constitute a punishment

under the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Ursery, 518 US at 278.

1. Intended to be criminal or civil

As both Ursery and 89 Firearms make clear, the

question of intent focuses primarily on the text of the autho-

rizing legislation and is significantly informed by whether

the text creates a civil in rem proceeding. Indeed, the

Supreme Court has consistently described the question as

one of statutory construction that focuses on the procedural

mechanisms specified in the authorizing legislation, in addi-

tion to any clear evidence of the “aims” of those who autho-

rized the forfeiture. Ursery, 518 US at 277; 89 Firearms, 465

US at 363-64; see One Lot, 409 US at 237 (“The question of

whether a given sanction is civil or criminal is one of statu-

tory construction.”).

For example, in 89 Firearms, the government had

seized a collection of weapons from the owner’s home and,

after the owner was acquitted of illegally dealing in fire-

arms without a license, the federal government brought an

in rem forfeiture action against the weapons pursuant to

a federal statute that authorized seizure and forfeiture of

“ ‘any firearm or ammunition involved in or used or intended

to be used in’ ” violations of certain federal laws. 465 US at

355-56; id. at 356 n 2 (quoting 18 USC § 924(d)). The Court

identified the clearest indication of Congressional intent in

the “distinctly civil procedures” that the statute specified for

enforcing forfeitures under the statute. Id. at 363. The Court

pointed in particular to the statutory requirement that “an

action to enforce a forfeiture ‘shall be in the nature of a pro-

ceeding in rem’ ” and reiterated the theme, mentioned above,

that “actions in rem have traditionally been viewed as civil

proceedings, with jurisdiction dependent upon seizure of

a physical object.” Id. at 363 (quoting 26 USC § 7323). In

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 93

addition, the Court identified as significant the fact that the

statutory framework authorized summary proceedings for

forfeitures of low-value property. Id.

“Finally,” the Court reasoned, the authorized for-

feiture furthered “broad remedial aims” that had motivated

Congress to pass the legislation, including “by discouraging

unregulated commerce in firearms and by removing from

circulation firearms that have been used or intended for use

outside regulated channels of commerce.” Id. at 364; see id.

(explaining that “Congress sought to ‘control the indiscrim-

inate flow’ of firearms and to ‘assist and encourage States

and local communities to adopt and enforce stricter gun con-

trol laws’ ” (quoting HR Rep No 1577, 90th Cong, 2d Sess,

reprinted in 1968 USCCAN 4410, 4413)).

The Court employed that approach again in Ursery,

in which it considered consolidated cases, one in which the

circuit court had held that a prior civil forfeiture presented

a double jeopardy bar to the owner’s subsequent criminal

prosecution, and one in which the circuit court had held

that the owner’s prior criminal conviction presented a dou-

ble jeopardy bar to the civil forfeiture action. 518 US at

271-72. As it had in 89 Firearms, the Court concluded that

Congress’s intent was “most clearly demonstrated” by the

“distinctly civil procedures” that Congress had established

for enforcing forfeitures under the statutes—primarily the

fact that Congress had designated the forfeiture as “civil”

and had specified that the forfeiture would proceed “in

rem.” Id. at 288-89 (quoting 89 Firearms, 465 US at 363).

The Court secondarily pointed to various other “distinctly

civil procedures” that Congress had incorporated, including

that forfeiture could proceed without actual notice to the

claimant, that the seized property was subject to forfeiture

through a summary procedure if no claim was filed, and

that the government’s burden of proof was low—there, prob-

able cause. Id.

2. Effect of the forfeiture proceeding

The Supreme Court has cautioned that, when a for-

feiture is intended to serve a “remedial civil sanction rather

than a criminal punishment,” only “the clearest proof that

94 Yamhill County v. Real Property

the purpose and effect of the forfeiture are punitive will suf-

fice to override [the legislature’s] manifest preference for a

civil sanction.” 89 Firearms, 465 US at 364-65 (internal quo-

tation marks omitted); see Ursery, 518 US at 290 (explain-

ing that Court found “little evidence, much less the clear-

est proof that we require” that forfeiture proceedings under

the statute were “so punitive in form and effect as to ren-

der them criminal despite Congress’ intent to the contrary”

(internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Court in other contexts has identified a nonex-

clusive list of considerations that are “relevant to the ques-

tion whether a proceeding is criminal.” Ursery, 518 US at

292 (citing United States v. Ward, 448 US 242, 247-48, 247

n 7, 249, 100 S Ct 2636, 65 L Ed 2d 742 (1980), as “listing

relevant factors and noting that they are neither exhaustive

nor dispositive”); 89 Firearms, 465 US at 365 (citing Kennedy

v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144, 168-69, 83 S Ct 554, 9

L Ed 2d 644 (1963), which lists the same factors).4 But the

Court’s analysis in Ursery and 89 Firearms illustrates that,

in the context of a forfeiture, determining whether proceed-

ings are so punitive as to be deemed criminal turns largely

on the same considerations that also persuaded the Court

that Congress intended to create a civil sanction.

“Most significant” to the Court in Ursery was the

fact that the forfeiture statutes, “while perhaps having cer-

tain punitive aspects, serve important nonpunitive goals.”

518 US at 290. That factor tracks one of the listed consider-

ations—whether the sanction “may rationally be connected”

to “an alternative purpose”—but also repeats one of the

considerations that the Court has pointed to as evidence of

Congressional intent. See 89 Firearms, 465 US at 364 (iden-

tifying statute’s furtherance of “broad remedial aims” in

concluding that Congress intended “a remedial civil sanction

The nonexhaustive list of factors in Ward is taken from Mendoza-Martinez:

4

“ ‘[W]hether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint,

whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, whether it comes

into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its operation will promote the

traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence, whether the

behavior to which it applies is already a crime, whether an alternative pur-

pose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether

it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.’ ”

Ward, 448 US at 247 n 7 (quoting Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US at 168-69).

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 95

rather than a criminal punishment”). Another factor asks

whether the sanction has historically been regarded as a

punishment, and, as the Court highlighted in Ursery, “it is

absolutely clear that in rem civil forfeiture has not histori-

cally been regarded as punishment, as we have understood

that term under the Double Jeopardy Clause.” 518 US at

291. Yet another factor asks whether the sanction requires a

finding of scienter, which the Court disposed of by citing the

procedural mechanism that permitted forfeiture of property

“even if no party files a claim to it and the Government never

shows any connection between the property and a particu-

lar person.” Id. at 291-92.

Ultimately, the Court’s cases offer little guidance

about what—if anything—could constitute “the clearest

proof” that an in rem civil forfeiture is “so punitive in form

and effect as to render [it] criminal despite” a contrary

intent, but they offer guidance on what does not suffice.

First, although promoting a purpose of deterrence—one of

the traditional “aims of punishment”—can suggest that a

sanction is criminal, Ursery makes clear that the factor is

not meaningful when evaluating a sanction of forfeiture,

because forfeiture “serves a deterrent purpose distinct from

any punitive purpose.” Id. at 292 (internal quotation marks

omitted). Nor is it relevant that a forfeiture statute includes

an “innocent owner” exception—which helps limit the sanc-

tion to only culpable owners—”without more indication of an

intent to punish.” Id. Finally, although tying a sanction to

criminal activity can be some indication that the sanction is

a criminal penalty, “[b]y itself, the fact that a forfeiture stat-

ute has some connection to a criminal violation is far from

the ‘clearest proof’ necessary to show that a proceeding is

criminal.” Id.; see 89 Firearms, 465 US at 366 (in explaining

that it was not sufficient that the proscribed behavior was

also a crime, emphasizing “the forfeiture remedy cannot be

said to be co-extensive with the criminal penalty”).

C. The Two-Part Inquiry Applied to Civil Forfeiture Under

Oregon Law

Oregon, similarly, has a long history of authorizing

civil in rem forfeiture through proceedings that are in addi-

tion to any criminal prosecution for the same conduct. See,

96 Yamhill County v. Real Property

e.g., State v. 1920 Studebaker Touring Car, 120 Or 254, 256,

251 P 701 (1926) (describing Oregon’s prohibition-era law

authorizing in rem forfeiture of boats and vehicles used to

unlawfully transport “intoxicating liquor”); Or Laws 1949,

ch 415, §§ 2-3 (authorizing forfeiture of “premises” on which

the owner or operator engaged in the unlawful service of

“alcoholic liquor containing more than 14 per cent of alcohol

by volume,” if “any person” was convicted for a violation of

the Act). And this court, in Selness, employed the Supreme

Court’s two-part inquiry to determine that Oregon’s civil in

rem forfeiture scheme prior to 2000 was “neither punish-

ment nor criminal” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment’s

Double Jeopardy Clause. Selness, 334 Or at 542 (internal

quotation marks omitted).

1. The two-part inquiry as applied in Selness

Although both Ursery and 89 Firearms analyzed

forfeiture proceedings authorized by federal statutes, and

thus, framed the first inquiry in terms of the intent of

“Congress,” the Court’s focus on the text of the authorizing

legislation is precisely how we identified the legislature’s

intent in Selness. See 334 Or at 541 (describing statutory

inquiry). And it is how we answer all questions of enac-

tor-intent, whether for a statute or constitutional provi-

sion. In both instances, we look to the text of the enactment

as the best evidence of the intent of those who adopted it.

See State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171, 206 P3d 1042 (2009)

(explaining that “there is no more persuasive evidence of the

intent of the legislature than the words by which the legis-

lature undertook to give expression to its wishes” (internal

quotation marks omitted)); Priest v. Pearce, 314 Or 411, 415-

16, 840 P2d 65 (1992) (describing that method for analyzing

original constitutional provisions).

The double jeopardy challenge in Selness arose in

the context of criminal prosecutions for drug activity that

coincided with an in rem forfeiture action against the defen-

dants’ home pursuant to the civil forfeiture statutes in effect

at the time.5 334 Or at 518. Although the defendants were

5

The civil forfeiture statutes at issue in Selness had been adopted in 1989

and amended in 1993. Oregon Laws 1989, ch 791; Oregon Laws 1993, ch 699. The

opinion notes that those statutes had been incorporated into ORS chapter 475A,

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 97

aware of the forfeiture proceeding, they did not file a claim

or otherwise appear. Id. at 521. Shortly after the defendants

had been arraigned on charges of possessing, manufac-

turing, and delivering a controlled substance, the City of

Portland obtained a default judgment of forfeiture based on

the allegation that the defendants had used their home to

facilitate the same “prohibited conduct” on which the defen-

dants’ pending criminal charges were based. Id. The defen-

dants then moved to dismiss the pending criminal charges,

contending that the earlier forfeiture barred the prosecu-

tions under the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause.

Id. at 521.6 This court first explained that it was considering

only whether “the overall forfeiture scheme” created a pro-

ceeding that implicated double jeopardy, because the defen-

dants had waived any argument that “as applied to them,

the forfeiture” proceeding counted as “jeopardy.” Id. at 523-

24. And the court concluded that the legislature had created

a forfeiture proceeding that was “neither ‘punishment’ nor

criminal for purposes of the [Fifth Amendment’s] Double

Jeopardy Clause.” Id. at 542 (quoting Ursery, 518 US at 292).

Selness reached that conclusion by analyzing the

statutory framework under Ursery’s two-part inquiry, which

we highlighted as employing a rebuttable presumption that

can be overcome only by the “clearest proof”:

“ ‘That a forfeiture is designated as civil by Congress and

proceeds in rem establishes a presumption that it is not

subject to double jeopardy. * * * Nevertheless, where the

‘clearest proof’ indicates that an in rem civil forfeiture is ‘so

punitive either in purpose or effect’ as to be equivalent to a

criminal proceeding, that forfeiture may be subject to the

Double Jeopardy Clause.’ ”

Id. at 541 (quoting Ursery, 518 US at 289 n 3).

Employing that analytical framework, this court

concluded that “[c]learly, the forfeiture scheme provided by

[the statutes at issue] satisfies the first step” of the Ursery

but, for reasons that the court did not explain, it referred to the statutory provi-

sions by their Oregon Laws citations throughout the opinion. 334 Or at 518 n 2.

6

The defendants in Selness also argued that the forfeiture implicated the

double jeopardy protections under Oregon’s constitution, Article I, section 12, and

the opinion primarily is devoted to explaining why the forfeiture did not consti-

tute “jeopardy” for purposes of Oregon law. 334 Or at 523-40.

98 Yamhill County v. Real Property

analysis. Id. at 541. Like the federal forfeiture statutes at

issue in Ursery and 89 Firearms, the forfeiture statute at

issue in Selness “repeatedly refer[ed] to civil forfeiture[,]”

and specified that the forfeiture proceed through an in rem

action. Id. at 536 (emphasis in original). In addition, the

statutes expressly articulated an intent that “any remedy

under this Act is intended to be remedial and not punitive”

and suggested several remedial purposes: “to render drug

manufacture and trafficking activities unprofitable by con-

fiscating the proceeds, to render those activities more diffi-

cult by confiscating tools and other property that facilitate

the activities, and to provide resources to governments that

enforce drug trafficking laws.” Id. at 536, 538. This court

reasoned that, “[l]ike the federal statute” in Ursery, the

Oregon forfeiture statute “announces, on its face, the leg-

islature’s intent that it be remedial and nonpunitive.” Id. at

541-42.

Moving to the second step of the Supreme Court’s

inquiry, this court emphasized that the defendants had not

“pointed to anything in the statutory scheme that would

suggest that they might obtain a different outcome at the

second step of the Ursery analysis.” Id. at 542. “Ultimately,”

this court concluded, “the forfeiture scheme provided” under

Oregon law was “indistinguishable, for purposes of the

present analysis, from the forfeiture scheme that the Ursery

court held to be civil.” Id. Thus, “like the forfeiture scheme

that was at issue in” Ursery, the Oregon forfeiture scheme

at issue in Selness was “ ‘neither ‘punishment’ nor criminal

for purposes of the [Fifth Amendment’s] Double Jeopardy

Clause.’ ” Id. (quoting Ursery, 518 US at 292).

2. The two-part inquiry applied to Oregon’s current for-

feiture law

As in Selness, claimant has not argued that any

particular aspects of the forfeiture proceeding cause the

proceeding to count as “jeopardy” as applied to claimant.

Thus, as in Selness, the question before us is whether “the

overall forfeiture scheme [under current Oregon law], and

not just its particular effect in [claimant’s] case, is criminal”

such that a forfeiture proceeding under that law necessar-

ily places an owner in jeopardy for purposes of the Fifth

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 99

Amendment. 334 Or at 524. Our decision in Selness signifi-

cantly informs our analysis of that question, but Selness

examined a different civil forfeiture law than the statute

at issue in this case. We, therefore, must consider whether

differences between the civil forfeiture law that we analyzed

in Selness and the current forfeiture law at issue here have

converted civil forfeiture in Oregon to a sanction that the

United States Supreme Court would consider to be essen-

tially criminal punishment subject to the Double Jeopardy

Clause. And because we are not resolving an as-applied

argument under that provision, we must consider the

entirety of the current forfeiture scheme. To provide context

for the parties’ arguments and our analysis, we turn first to

the changes to Oregon forfeiture law since Selness.

a. Evolution of in rem forfeiture in Oregon

The first change came while this court was con-

sidering the challenge to the 1989 forfeiture law at issue

in Selness, when voters in 2000 adopted Ballot Measure 3,

which was known as “The Oregon Property Protection Act

of 2000.” That measure added to the Oregon Constitution

several substantive limitations on the “forfeiture of property

in a civil forfeiture proceeding,” and announced as a general

principle that a person’s property should not be forfeited to

the government “unless and until that person is convicted

of a crime involving the property.” Or Const, Art XV, § 10(2),

(3) (2000).7 The passage of Measure 3 prompted legal chal-

lenges and, ultimately, amendments to Article XV, section

10, and legislative action.

Initially, the legal challenges to Measure 3 appeared

to succeed, when the Court of Appeals declared the measure

void under Article 17, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution,

for changing multiple constitutional provisions in a sin-

gle measure. See Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v.

Kitzhaber, 188 Or App 526, 554, 72 P3d 967 (2003), rev’d, 341

Or 496, 145 P3d 151 (2006) (so holding). Although this court

ultimately reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, in

7

Voters had adopted Measure 3—the provisions of which became the 2000

version of Article XV, section 10—while the Selness case was pending in this

court, and the effect of the constitutional provisions on the existing civil forfei-

ture framework was not at issue in that case.

100 Yamhill County v. Real Property

the intervening vacuum, legislators adopted changes to the

forfeiture statutes. Or Laws 2005 ch 830, §§ 30-35. Those

changes incorporated the principle underlying Measure 3,

that forfeiture generally should be limited to the property

of a person who has been convicted of a crime, but added

exceptions to that general rule that are similar to those

found under the current law. Id. § 30. In that same bill, the

legislature created a process for criminal forfeiture, as “a

remedy separate and apart from any other criminal penalty

and from civil forfeiture or any other civil penalty.” Id.§ 2; see

also id. §§ 1-18 (setting out the criminal forfeiture provisions

of the 2005 Act that are now codified at ORS chapter 131A).

After this court held that Measure 3 had validly

added civil forfeiture protections to the Oregon Constitution,

Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team, 341 Or 496, the legis-

lature agreed on proposed amendments to Article XV, sec-

tion 10, which it referred to the voters as Ballot Measure 53

(2008). SJR 18 (2007). In addition to making nonsubstantive

organizational changes, the proposed amendments, which

the voters approved, significantly modified the forfeiture

limitations adopted under Measure 3, including by modify-

ing the statement of principles to reflect the proposition that

the property of a person “generally” should not be forfeited

unless that person has been convicted of a crime and by

expanding the circumstances under which property could

be forfeited without a conviction of the owner. Compare Or

Const, Art XV, § 10(3) (2000),8 with Or Const, Art XV, § 10(2),

(5) (2008).9 In addition, the amendments modified what had

been a requirement of proof by “clear and convincing evi-

dence” in almost every case and modified the requirement

that forfeited property must be proceeds or an instrumen-

tality of the crime of conviction. Compare Or Const, Art XV,

§ 10(3) (2000), with Or Const, Art XV, § 10(3)(c), (d), (4), (6)

(2008).

8

Under the 2000 version of Article XV, section 10, the exceptions to the

requirement that the owner must have been convicted of a crime were limited to

persons who “took the property or the interest with the intent to defeat the forfei-

ture” and property for which “no person claims an interest in the seized property

or if the property is contraband.” Oregon Const, Art XV, § 10(4), (5) (2000).

9

The provisions of Article XV, section 10, have not been amended since the

passage of Measure 53 in 2008. Thus, except for references to Article XV, section

10 (2000), all references are to the current constitutional provision.

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 101

After the voters adopted the amendments to Article

XV, section 10, through their approval of Measure 53, the

legislature took up the task of crafting our current statu-

tory framework for civil forfeiture. The legislature in 2009

adopted the provisions set out in ORS chapter 131A as a

new, comprehensive statutory framework to govern civil for-

feiture. See Or Laws 2009, ch 78, §2 (specifying that the leg-

islature adopted provisions of the chapter to be “the sole and

exclusive law of the state governing civil forfeiture of real

and personal property based on prohibited conduct”).

The provisions of ORS chapter 131A govern all

“civil forfeiture of real and personal property based on pro-

hibited conduct” and expressly incorporate “the limitations

of section 10, Article XV of the Oregon Constitution.” ORS

131A.010(2). In explaining the reason for the new civil for-

feiture law, the legislature included findings that “[t]ransac-

tions involving property subject to civil forfeiture under this

chapter escape taxation” and that “[g]overnments attempt-

ing to respond to prohibited conduct require additional

resources.” ORS 131A.010(1)(b), (c). It also specified that “[t]

he application of any remedy under this chapter is remedial

and not punitive.” ORS 131A.010(5).

Those statutes authorize a “civil forfeiture action in

rem” against property that has some connection to “prohib-

ited conduct”—generally defined as drug crimes and human

trafficking crimes. ORS 131A.225(1); ORS 131A.005(12).

The connection extends to proceeds of “prohibited conduct,”

personal property “used to facilitate prohibited conduct,”

and real property “that is used in any manner, in whole or

part, to commit or facilitate prohibited conduct.” See ORS

131A.020 (describing property that is subject to forfeiture

under ORS chapter 131A).

The statutes specify that the “civil forfeiture action

in rem,” is initiated by filing a complaint that need only

allege “that there is probable cause for seizure of the prop-

erty or that a court order was issued.” ORS 131A.225(1), (4).

Upon commencement of the action, the seizing entity must

also serve the summons and the complaint, in the manner

required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, “on all persons

known to have an interest in the property.” ORS 131A.230.

102 Yamhill County v. Real Property

And a person who intends to assert an interest in the prop-

erty generally “must file a responsive pleading as provided

in the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure.” ORS 131A.235.

The procedural mechanisms contemplate that

actual notice to interested persons is not always necessary

and specify that forfeiture can proceed through a summary

ex parte or default procedure, without proof of a conviction, if

no claim or responsive pleading is filed. See ORS 131A.200(1)

(providing that the agency may seek an ex parte forfeiture

judgment if no timely claim to the property was filed and

no person is “known to have an interest, other than a per-

son who is believed by the forfeiting agency to have engaged

in prohibited conduct”); ORS 131A.315 (providing circum-

stances for a default forfeiture judgment).

If a forfeiture complaint is contested, then the entity

seeking forfeiture must prove only that “a person has been

convicted of a crime that constitutes prohibited conduct”

and that the property is either proceeds or an instrumen-

tality of “the crime for which the person has been convicted”

or “one or more other crimes similar to the crime for which

the person was convicted.” ORS 131A.255(1). But the stat-

utes also contemplate that the person claiming an interest

in the property may not necessarily be the person who was

convicted of a crime. See ORS 131A.255(2) (describing addi-

tional elements of proof when a claimant is not the person

convicted). If a person claiming the property is not the per-

son who was convicted of a crime, then the forfeiting agency

also must prove that the claimant “[t]ook the property with

the intent to defeat forfeiture,” “[k]new or should have known

that the property was proceeds of prohibited conduct,” or “[a]

cquiesced in the prohibited conduct.” ORS 131A.255(2); see

also ORS 131A.255(4) (explaining that “a claimant shall be

considered to have acquiesced in prohibited conduct if the

claimant knew of the prohibited conduct and failed to take

reasonable action under the circumstances to terminate the

prohibited conduct or prevent use of the seized property to

facilitate the prohibited conduct”).

The forfeiting agency’s standard of proof in a con-

tested action varies, depending on the type of property, but

in all cases it is one of the standards associated with civil

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 103

proceedings, rather than the traditional criminal standard

of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 US 466, 477, 490, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000)

(emphasizing that due process requires proof “beyond a rea-

sonable doubt” of every element of a crime and facts that

enhance the sentence for a crime). To forfeit real property,

the agency must prove the specified elements by clear and

convincing evidence, but, to forfeit personal property, the

agency must prove the elements only by a preponderance of

the evidence. ORS 131A.255(3); Or Const, Art XV, § 10(6) (for

personal property, requiring proof by preponderance of evi-

dence and, for real property, clear and convincing evidence).

And for cash, weapons, or negotiable instruments, if the

agency establishes that the items “were found in close prox-

imity to controlled substances or to instrumentalities of pro-

hibited conduct,” then the agency bears no burden of proof

as to the remaining elements; instead, the person claiming

the items bears the burden to prove that the cash, weapons,

or negotiable instruments are not proceeds or instrumental-

ities of prohibited conduct. ORS 131A.255(5).

b. Applying the Court’s analytical framework to

ORS chapter 131A

As described above, to determine whether the coun-

ty’s civil forfeiture action violated claimant’s rights under

the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, we employ

the two-part inquiry articulated in Ursery, informed by

Selness’s application of that analysis to Oregon forfeiture

law.

According to the county, the new constitutional lim-

itations, and the new statutory framework incorporating

those limitations, have retained an overall forfeiture scheme

that is neither intended to be criminal punishment nor in

effect the equivalent of criminal punishment for purposes

of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Therefore, the county urges this court to reach the same con-

clusion that we reached regarding the proceeding in Selness.

Claimant disagrees. She contends that the voters

that initially adopted constitutional limitations on civil

forfeiture intended forfeiture proceedings in Oregon to be

104 Yamhill County v. Real Property

criminal and punitive. She also argues that, regardless of

intent, civil forfeiture in Oregon is “so punitive in effect as to

constitute criminal punishment,” thus implicating federal

double jeopardy prohibitions.10

As we will explain, we reach the same conclusion

about the current civil forfeiture framework that we reached

when examining the forfeiture at issue in Selness: “[T]he for-

feiture scheme [under current Oregon law] is ‘neither punish-

ment nor criminal for purposes of the [Fifth Amendment’s]

Double Jeopardy Clause.’ ” Selness, 334 Or at 542 (quoting

Ursery, 518 US at 292 (third brackets in Selness)).

Turning first to whether the current forfeiture sanc-

tion is intended to serve a criminal purpose, it is significant

that the text of the current constitutional and statutory pro-

visions includes the same indications that, in Selness, per-

suaded us that the statute demonstrated, “on its face, the

legislature’s intent that it be remedial and nonpunitive.” See

334 Or at 541-42. Most significantly, as in Selness, the leg-

islature again authorized forfeiture that proceeds through

the mechanism of an in rem action, a mechanism that the

constitutional limitations do not prohibit. ORS 131A.225(1);

Or Const, Art XV, § 10. In other words, Oregon law has “spe-

cifically structured these forfeitures to be impersonal by tar-

geting the property itself.” Ursery, 518 US at 289. In addition,

references to the proceeding as a “civil forfeiture” pervade

both ORS chapter 131A and Article XV, section 10. Thus, as

in Selness, current forfeiture law “announces, on its face, the

legislature’s intent that it be remedial and nonpunitive.” 334

Or at 541-42; see ORS 131A.010(5) (stating that “any remedy

under this chapter is remedial and not punitive”).

As we explained in Selness, those designations of

the sanction as a “civil forfeiture” that proceeds as an “in

rem” action, alone, satisfy the first Ursery inquiry and give

rise to “a presumption that” the proceedings under current

forfeiture law are not subject to federal double jeopardy

10

A substantial portion of claimant’s brief also raises reasons why, in her

view, civil forfeiture is bad policy for Oregon. But we decline to consider those

arguments. The only question before this court is whether this forfeiture pro-

ceeding violated claimant’s federal right against double jeopardy. See State v.

Atkinson, 298 Or 1, 6, 688 P2d 832 (1984) (explaining that this court is “a judicial,

not a legislative body,” and that it “is not our function to decide” matters of policy).

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 105

prohibitions. See 334 Or at 541 (describing significance that

Ursery assigned to those designations). Indeed, the legis-

lature’s designation of a “civil” and “in rem” forfeiture pro-

ceeding in ORS chapter 131A has heightened significance

because we presume that the legislature was aware of the

emphasis that both Ursery and Selness assigned to those

designations. See OR-OSHA v. CBI Services, Inc., 356 Or

577, 593, 341 P3d 701 (2014) (explaining that a statute’s con-

text includes judicial “decisions that existed at the time that

the legislature enacted” the statute at issue). Those cases

make it clear that the most significant characteristics of a

forfeiture that is civil and remedial, and thus not criminal

punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, are

that the forfeiture is effectuated through an in rem action

that has been given a “civil” designation.

The legislature could have departed from either char-

acteristic when it adopted the new comprehensive forfeiture

framework—indeed, when the legislature adopted ORS chap-

ter 131A, Oregon law already included statutes authorizing

and specifying procedures for “criminal forfeiture.” See Or

Laws 2005, chapter 830 (codified at ORS 131.550 - 131.604).

But the legislature, instead, chose to authorize a separate in

rem civil forfeiture proceeding that “does not affect the appli-

cation of any other civil or criminal remedy under any other

provision of law.” ORS 131A.010(5). Those key characteristics

of the statute were enough to persuade us in Selness that the

statutory scheme “[c]learly” established that the legislature

intended the forfeiture to be civil and remedial. 334 Or at 541.

And they are enough to persuade us here as well, but other

provisions of the forfeiture laws reinforce that conclusion.11

First, the legislature’s intent to authorize a reme-

dial, civil sanction is confirmed by the statute’s express

11

We do not suggest that the legislature, by applying a “civil, in rem” label,

can preclude a court from later concluding that a forfeiture action implicates

double jeopardy protections. Indeed, despite adopting characteristics that create

a “presumption” under federal law that the forfeiture does not implicate double

jeopardy, see Selness, 334 Or at 541, the legislature apparently recognized that

a court might eventually conclude otherwise—under state or federal law. That

recognition is reflected in ORS 131A.265 and 131A.270, which provide for stays

or consolidation of related criminal and civil forfeiture actions and which specify

that a defendant’s motion to stay a forfeiture or any opposition by the defendant

to consolidation “constitutes a waiver of double jeopardy” by the defendant.

106 Yamhill County v. Real Property

indications of a nonpunitive purpose. In Selness, this court

pointed to the legislative findings that the forfeiture “rem-

edy” under the Act was “intended to be remedial and not

punitive” as “clearly express[ing] a civil intent.” 334 Or at

536. Current Oregon law contains an identical statement

of purpose in ORS 131A.010(5). Moreover, as was true in

Selness, both the statutes and constitution permit forfeiture

of property owned by a person who has not been convicted

of a crime if the person “should have known that the prop-

erty was proceeds of prohibited conduct” or “[a]cquiesced in

the prohibited conduct.” ORS 131A.255(2); Or Const, Art

XV, § 10(5) (providing the same). As the Court explained in

Ursery, forfeiture in that context serves “important nonpun-

itive goals” of “encourage[ing] property owners to take care

in managing their property and ensur[ing] that they will

not permit that property to be used for illegal purposes.” 518

US at 290.

Oregon’s civil forfeiture laws also incorporate what

the Court in Ursery and 89 Firearms identified as other

“ ‘distinctly civil procedures’ ” for the authorized forfeiture

that further point to an intent to authorize forfeiture as a

civil, remedial sanction. Ursery, 518 US at 289 (quoting 89

Firearms, 465 US at 363). Those procedures include that

actual notice to interested persons is not always necessary,

that forfeiture can proceed through a summary procedure if

no claim is filed, and that the state is held to a standard of

proof that in all cases is lower than the criminal “beyond a

reasonable doubt” standard. See ORS 131A.200(1) (provid-

ing that the agency may seek an ex parte forfeiture judgment

if no timely claim to the property was filed and no person

is “known to have an interest, other than a person who is

believed by the forfeiting agency to have engaged in prohib-

ited conduct”); ORS 131A.315 (providing circumstances for

a default forfeiture judgment); ORS 131A.150(4) (requiring

only that “forfeiting agency shall make reasonable efforts

to serve a forfeiture notice on all persons known to have an

interest in the seized property”); ORS 131A.255(3) (requir-

ing proof by preponderance of evidence for personal prop-

erty and, for real property, clear and convincing evidence).

The Court in Ursery and 89 Firearms identified the same

“ ‘distinctly civil procedures’ ” as secondary indications

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 107

confirming that Congress had intended to create a civil

sanction. Ursery, 518 US at 289 (quoting 89 Firearms, 465

US at 363). As the Court reasoned in Ursery, by “creating

such distinctly civil procedures for forfeitures,” the legisla-

ture indicated “clearly that it intended a civil, not a crimi-

nal sanction.” 518 US at 289 (internal quotation marks and

brackets omitted).

We thus have no doubt that the legislature intended

to authorize a forfeiture that is a civil, remedial sanction,

rather than a criminal, punitive sanction, resolving the first

Ursery inquiry. Indeed, neither the Court of Appeals nor

claimant have disputed that legislative intent or disputed

that, in giving effect to that intent, the legislature enacted

a forfeiture scheme that conforms to the limitations on civil

forfeiture imposed by Article XV, section 10. And given that

intent, only “the clearest proof that the purpose and effect

of the forfeiture are punitive will suffice to override [the

legislature’s] manifest preference for a civil sanction.” 89

Firearms, 465 US at 365 (internal quotation marks omit-

ted).

The second Ursery inquiry requires us to assess

whether, despite the legislature’s intent, the forfeiture

proceedings are so punitive in form and effect as to ren-

der them criminal. When concluding that the forfeiture at

issue in Ursery was not in effect a criminal punishment,

the Court identified as “[m]ost significant” the fact that the

forfeiture statutes, “while perhaps having certain punitive

aspects, serve important nonpunitive goals.” 518 US at 290.

The same was true of the forfeiture that we considered in

Selness, and the same is true of civil forfeiture under cur-

rent Oregon law.

In Ursery, the Court described the forfeiture at issue

as serving the nonpunitive goals of ensuring that property

is not used for illegal purposes and, in the case of proceeds,

ensuring “that persons do not profit from their illegal acts.”

518 US at 290-91. And Selness, similarly, identified provi-

sions of the forfeiture statute that “suggest, and are con-

sistent with, remedial purposes,” specifically “(1) to render

the sale and manufacture of illegal drugs unprofitable by

confiscating the proceeds of those activities; (2) to make

108 Yamhill County v. Real Property

those activities more difficult by confiscating the tools and

property that have made those activities possible; and (3)

to reimburse governments for their costs in enforcing drug

laws.” 334 Or at 536-37 (citing Or Laws 1989, ch 791, § 1(a),

(c); Or Laws 1989, ch 791, § 3).

Current Oregon forfeiture law also contains pro-

visions that suggest, and are consistent with, those same

remedial aims. See Or Const, Art XV, § 10(2)(d) (stating prin-

ciple that “[p]roceeds from forfeited property should be used

for treatment of drug abuse, unless otherwise specified”);

Or Const, Art XV, § 10(12)(c) (specifying distribution of net

forfeiture proceeds “[t]o the State or any of its political sub-

divisions to be used exclusively for drug treatment, unless

another disposition is specially provided by law”); ORS

131A.010(1)(c) (finding that “[g]overnments attempting to

respond to prohibited conduct require additional resources”);

ORS 131A.020(4), (6), (7) (specifying that “all proceeds of

prohibited conduct” are subject to forfeiture as well as “all

conveyances” that “are used in prohibited conduct or that

are used to facilitate prohibited conduct” and “[a]ll real prop-

erty” used “to commit or facilitate prohibited conduct”); ORS

131A.365(5) (providing that the state shall use a portion of

forfeiture proceeds to fund the Criminal Justice Revolving

Account and Special Crime and Forfeiture Account).

Nevertheless, according to claimant, several

aspects of the constitutional forfeiture limitations require

us to reach a different answer about the essential character

of the current civil forfeiture framework than we reached in

Selness. She points to the statement of principles in Article

XV, section 10, which she views as “confining forfeiture to

circumstances that promote the traditional aims of punish-

ment—retribution and deterrence,” and she points to sev-

eral substantive provisions. Claimant contends that Article

XV, section 10, has drastically changed forfeiture in Oregon

to require “a criminal conviction as a prerequisite to obtain-

ing a forfeiture judgment,” a direct causal relationship

between “the underlying criminal conduct” and the prop-

erty to be forfeited, and a “substantially proportional” rela-

tionship between the value of the property and the “under-

lying criminal conduct.” She urges us to conclude that, as a

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 109

result of those changes, Oregon’s civil forfeiture law must be

regarded as criminal punishment under the considerations

described in the Mendoza-Martinez case.12

As an initial matter, claimant is mistaken about the

significance of the reference in the statement of principles to

what she views as promoting “retribution and deterrence.”

The Court in Ursery emphasized that, although promoting

a purpose of deterrence generally can suggest that a sanc-

tion is criminal, the factor is not meaningful when evalu-

ating a sanction of forfeiture, because forfeiture “serves a

deterrent purpose distinct from any punitive purpose.” 518

US at 292 (internal quotation marks omitted). We reasoned

similarly in Selness, in which the defendants had pointed

to “the presence of a traditionally criminal legislative pur-

pose of deterring prohibited conduct and the inclusion of an

‘innocent owner’ defense”—meaning that forfeiture was tied

to the owner’s criminal activity—as making the forfeiture

proceeding criminal in nature. 334 Or at 542. We dismissed

those aspects of the law as “aspects that the court in Ursery

expressly dismissed as inconsequential.” Id.

Claimant is also mistaken about the significance of

the proportionality requirement. Although claimant is cor-

rect that Article XV, section 10, provides that forfeiture “may

not be excessive and shall be substantially proportional to

the specific conduct for which the owner of the property has

been convicted,” claimant is mistaken about the significance

of that provision. The forfeiture law that we considered in

Selness, also had a provision requiring the court to consider

upon request whether the amount of forfeiture was “exces-

sive,” based on factors including the value of the property

“in relation to the criminal culpability of the person or per-

sons engaging in the prohibited conduct.” 334 Or at 520

n 7, 537 (citing Or Laws 1993, ch 699, §§ 13-15). And we

characterized those provisions as suggesting “an intent to

avoid punitive effects.” Id. at 537; see also Ursery, 518 US at

287 (explaining that, although the forfeiture was subject to

12

As described above, the considerations listed in Mendoza-Martinez were

also listed in Ward, and the Court in Ursery explored how those factors applied

in the context of a civil forfeiture, concluding that they “tend[ed] to support a

conclusion that” forfeitures under the statutes at issue “are civil proceedings.”

518 US at 290-92 (citing Ward, 448 US at 247-48, 247 n 7, 249).

110 Yamhill County v. Real Property

review for excessiveness, “this does not mean, however, that

those forfeitures are so punitive as to constitute punishment

for the purposes of double jeopardy”).

The remainder of claimant’s argument regarding

what she views as significant changes to Oregon forfeiture

law rests in part on premises that are unsound. Despite

claimant’s characterization to the contrary, neither Article

XV, section 10, nor the statutory provisions that incorpo-

rate those protections, require a conviction as a prerequi-

site to obtaining a forfeiture judgment in all cases. Rather,

both the constitution and the controlling statutes permit

forfeiture under certain circumstances without proof that

the owner, or indeed anyone, was convicted of a crime. Or

Const, Art XV, § 10(5)(b), (c) (permitting forfeiture under

certain circumstances if the claimant “knew or should have

known that the property constituted proceeds or an instru-

mentality of criminal conduct,” or if the claimant “knew of

the criminal conduct and failed to take reasonable action

under the circumstances to terminate the criminal conduct

or prevent use of the property to commit or facilitate the

criminal conduct”); id. § 10(9) (permitting forfeiture without

any proof of a conviction “if, following notice to all persons

known to have an interest or who may have an interest, no

person claims an interest in the seized property”); see ORS

131A.200(1) (permitting ex parte forfeiture of personal prop-

erty without proof of conviction if no timely claim has been

filed); ORS 131A.225(4) (specifying that complaint initiating

forfeiture action “need not allege that any claimant has been

convicted of a crime”); ORS 131A.315 (providing for default

judgment of forfeiture without proof of conviction if there is

no claim or responsive pleading in the action).

Nor do either the constitutional or statutory pro-

visions require a direct causal relationship between the

underlying prohibited conduct and the property to be for-

feited. Instead, both permit forfeiture of property that is the

proceeds or an instrumentality of “one or more other crimes

similar to the crime for which the person was convicted.”

ORS 131A.255(1)(c), (d); Or Const, Art XV, § 10(3)(c), (d).

Although we recognize that the forfeiture sanction

under current Oregon law is generally tied to a conviction

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 111

in a way that the forfeiture at issue in Selness may not have

been, the need to prove a criminal conviction of the owner

in some forfeiture actions does not establish that forfeiture

under Oregon law is necessarily equivalent to criminal pun-

ishment. See 89 Firearms, 465 US at 366 (reasoning that

“[w]hat overlap there is between the two sanctions is not

sufficient to persuade [the Court] that the forfeiture pro-

ceeding may not legitimately be viewed as civil in nature”).

Indeed, as the Court in Ursery emphasized, “at common law,

not only was it the case that a criminal conviction did not

bar a civil forfeiture, but, in fact, the civil forfeiture could

not be instituted unless a criminal conviction had already

been obtained.” 518 US at 275 (emphases in original). Tying

a sanction to criminal activity can be some indication that

the sanction is a criminal penalty, but, “[b]y itself, the fact

that a forfeiture statute has some connection to a criminal

violation is far from the ‘clearest proof’ necessary to show

that a proceeding is criminal.” Id. at 292; see Selness, 334

Or at 541 (describing Ursery as having “expressly rejected

arguments that the statute was shown to be punitive by the

fact that it tied forfeiture to criminal activity”).

It might be tempting to ignore the categories of for-

feiture under Oregon law that do not require a conviction of

the owner, and to simply ask whether a forfeiture proceed-

ing “is criminal in nature and effect” when the forfeiture

depends on proof that the claimant has already been con-

victed of prohibited conduct. But this court held in Selness

that an owner’s appearance or nonappearance cannot be the

basis for determining whether the forfeiture proceeding puts

a property owner “in jeopardy in the constitutional sense,”

because “[r]ealistically a property owner’s decision to file a

claim in a forfeiture proceeding under [Oregon forfeiture

law], has no effect on the essential character of that pro-

ceeding.” 334 Or at 524. The question before us is whether

the essential character of forfeiture proceedings under cur-

rent Oregon law is now “so punitive in form and effect as

to render them criminal despite [the legislature’s] intent to

the contrary,” Ursery, 518 US at 290, and the answer to that

question must be the same regardless of whether the owner

appears, Selness, 334 Or at 524. And because claimant has

not made an argument based on the specific circumstances

112 Yamhill County v. Real Property

of this forfeiture proceeding, it must be that “the overall

forfeiture scheme” under current Oregon law is effectively

criminal in its form and effect. Given that neither the con-

stitution nor the statutory provisions require proof of a con-

viction when the owner fails to appear, the character of the

overall civil forfeiture scheme under current Oregon law

“cannot be said to be co-extensive with the criminal pen-

alty.” 89 Firearms, 465 US at 366.

The Court in 89 Firearms ultimately concluded that

none of the other Mendoza-Martinez factors lent “any sup-

port” to a view that the forfeiture proceeding was punitive

and “criminal in nature.” 465 US at 365. The Court reached

the same conclusion in Ursery, explaining that the consider-

ations listed in Ward “tend[ed] to support a conclusion that”

forfeitures under the statutes at issue “are civil proceed-

ings.” 518 US at 290-92. And we reached the same conclu-

sion in Selness. There, this court considered the “aspects of

the overall scheme that defendants tout as indicative of the

statute’s overwhelmingly criminal nature,” but we were not

persuaded. 334 Or at 542. We concluded that the defendants’

“Fifth Amendment double jeopardy claim cannot prevail

under the Ursery analysis” because the “forfeiture scheme”

at issue in Selness was “indistinguishable, for purposes of

the present analysis, from the forfeiture scheme that the

Ursery court held to be civil.” Id. at 541-42. As was true in

Selness, claimant’s arguments fail to persuade us that the

civil in rem forfeiture authorized under current Oregon law

is “so punitive either in purpose or effect as to be equiva-

lent to a criminal proceeding.” Id. at 541(internal quotations

omitted).

In arguing that we must reach a different conclusion

regarding the forfeiture authorized under current Oregon

law, claimant argues that voters in 2000 intended Article

XV, section 10, to restrict civil forfeiture to a sanction so

close to criminal punishment that it amounts to “jeopardy”

as the Supreme Court understands that term. The Court

of Appeals was persuaded, concluding that those voters

intended to “[i]n effect * * * reject[ ] the legal fiction underly-

ing in rem forfeitures—that property itself can be guilty so

as to allow the government to take it—and replace[ ] it with

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 113

an in personam theory of forfeiture that implicates double

jeopardy.” Yamhill County, 324 Or App at 423.

We acknowledge that the sources on which the Court

of Appeals relied suggest an intent to limit forfeiture to prop-

erty of a person who has been convicted of a crime. As indi-

cated above, the text of the original measure specified as a

statement of principle that “[t]he property of a person should

not be forfeited in a forfeiture proceeding by government

unless and until that person is convicted of a crime involving

the property,” Measure 3(2)(b) (2000), and the voters pam-

phlet described the “result of ‘yes’ vote” as: “requires con-

viction before property forfeiture,” Official Voters’ Pamphlet,

General Election, Nov 7, 2000, 236. But the court’s reliance

on those general provisions overstates both the extent and

the significance of the alignment between forfeiture and a

criminal conviction under Measure 3. See Ursery, 518 US at

275 (explaining that, “at common law, not only was it the

case that a criminal conviction did not bar a civil forfeiture,

but, in fact, the civil forfeiture could not be instituted unless

a criminal conviction had already been obtained” (emphases

in original)); Or Const, Art XV, § 10(9) (permitting forfeiture

without a conviction “if, following notice to all persons known

to have an interest or who may have an interest, no person

claims an interest in the seized property”).

Moreover, the focus on those indications of intent

in 2000 overlooks two key obstacles: First, despite general

expressions of intent, voters in 2000 did not change the

characteristics of civil forfeiture that Ursery and Selness

describe as the most significant indications of an intent to

make forfeiture a civil, remedial sanction; and second, vot-

ers in 2008 substantially amended Article XV, section 10, in

ways that demonstrate an intent to further distinguish civil

forfeiture from criminal punishment.

When we determine the intent of voters who

adopted an initiated ballot measure, we focus—as we do in

the construction of statutes—on the measure’s text and con-

text, and on the measure’s history “should it appear useful

to our analysis.” Knopp v. Griffin-Valade, 372 Or 1, 9, 17, 543

P3d 1239 (2024) (internal quotations omitted). Examining

the text of Measure 3, informed by Ursery, there are strong

114 Yamhill County v. Real Property

indications that voters did not intend to eliminate civil,

remedial forfeiture in Oregon.

We base that conclusion on the same textual indica-

tions of intent that we identified in ORS chapter 131A and

in the forfeiture statutes at issue in Selness. Our analysis of

Measure 3 differs, however, in that the text of that measure

did not purport to authorize any type of forfeiture proceed-

ing; it only adopted limitations on when property may be

forfeited. Thus, our understanding of whether the voters in

2000 intended to eliminate civil forfeiture is informed by

the forfeiture mechanisms they allowed as much as by those

that they prohibited.

Starting with what the Supreme Court has made

clear are the most significant indications of intent, the

constitutional provision adopted by Measure 3 repeatedly

referred to the protections it creates as limitations appli-

cable to “a civil forfeiture proceeding.” Or Const, Art XV,

§ 10(3), (4) (2000). It also stated, as a principle and as a sub-

stantive provision, that proceeds from forfeiture would be

distributed to serve a remedial purpose—to “be used for

treatment of drug abuse unless otherwise specified by law

for another purpose.” Id. § 10(2)(d), (7).

Moreover, Measure 3 did nothing to prohibit the

existing, “distinctly civil” procedural mechanisms for

accomplishing forfeiture—most notably the existing use of

an in rem procedure to accomplish forfeiture of property

connected to “prohibited conduct.” See Ursery, 518 US at 288

(explaining that Congress’ intent that a forfeiture would be

a civil proceeding was “ ‘most clearly demonstrated by the

procedural mechanisms it established for enforcing forfei-

tures under the statute[s]’ ” (quoting 89 Firearms, 465 US at

363)). Claimant argues that the statement of principles at

the outset of Measure 3 “appears to embrace an in personam

theory of forfeiture,” but the substantive provisions do not

bear that out; nothing in Measure 3 requires forfeiture to be

accomplished through an action against a person.

The fact that voters continued to allow “civil for-

feiture” through an “in rem” proceeding is imbued with

particular significance in the context of the existing and

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 115

controlling guidance from the Court in Ursery, which had

emphasized that in rem forfeitures are structured “to be

impersonal by targeting the property itself” and that the

Court’s cases have adhered to the “remarkably consistent

theme” that “[i]n rem civil forfeiture is a remedial civil sanc-

tion.” Ursery, 518 US at 289, 278. We generally presume

that even laws enacted by voters “are enacted in light of the

judicial decisions that preceded and bear directly on them.”

Hazell v. Brown, 352 Or 455, 465-66, 287 P3d 1079 (2012).

And, applying that principle to voters in 2000, their choice

to allow the legislature to continue authorizing “civil for-

feiture” through an in rem action against the property sig-

nificantly undermines claimant’s premise that those voters

intended to transform forfeiture into the kind of proceeding

that the Supreme Court would consider to be “equivalent to

a criminal proceeding” and subject to the Double Jeopardy

Clause. Selness, 334 Or at 541.

In addition, claimant’s premise that voters in 2000

intended to make all forfeiture actions the equivalent of

a criminal proceeding faces a second significant obstacle

because it ignores the substantial amendments that voters

in 2008 made to the provisions of Article XV, section 10; it

is those amended limitations that the legislature incorpo-

rated when it adopted the current civil forfeiture scheme in

2009. As we recently explained, “when interpreting a con-

stitutional amendment adopted through an initiated ballot

measure, we consider the voters’ intent,” and when later vot-

ers have made relevant amendments to the constitutional

provisions, we must consider the intent of the later voters.

Knopp, 372 Or at 9 (internal quotations omitted); see id.

(considering intent of voters that approved the amended text

of Article IV, section 15, which was at issue); see also Hazell,

352 Or at 465 (explaining that “we apply a similar method of

analysis to statutes enacted by voter-initiated measures as

we do to statutes enacted by the legislature, with the goal of

discerning the intent of the voters who passed those initia-

tives into law”).

In arguing that the text of Measure 3 points to an

intent to transform forfeiture to a criminal punishment,

claimant pointed to the statement of principles and to the

116 Yamhill County v. Real Property

general alignment between forfeiture of property and a

criminal conviction of the owner. But, as mentioned above,

voters in 2008 modified those provisions in three significant

ways when they adopted Measure 53.

First, Measure 53 modified the “statement of princi-

ples” in Article XV, section 10, to specify that “[t]he property

of a person generally should not be forfeited in a forfeiture

proceeding by government unless and until that person is

convicted of a crime involving the property.” Official Voters’

Pamphlet, Primary Election, May 20, 2008, 84; Measure 53

§10(2)(b) (emphasis in original).

Second, Measure 53 modified what had been the gen-

eral prohibition on forfeiture “until and unless the owner of

the property is convicted of a crime” to make that provision

expressly subject to exception, and the measure added new

exceptions that expand the circumstances under which for-

feiture does not require a conviction of the owner. Id. §10(3).

Those exceptions permit forfeiture under certain circum-

stances, including if the “property constitutes proceeds or an

instrumentality of crime committed by another person” and

the claimant “knew or should have known that the property

constituted proceeds or an instrumentality of criminal con-

duct,” or if the claimant “knew of the criminal conduct and

failed to take reasonable action under the circumstances to

terminate the criminal conduct or prevent use of the property

to commit or facilitate the criminal conduct.” Id. § 10(5)(b), (c).

And third, Measure 53 substantially modified what

had been a “clear and convincing” proof requirement to

instead permit forfeiture upon proof by “a preponderance of

the evidence” for personal property, and it entirely shifted

the burden to the claimant if the property is “cash, weapons

or negotiable instruments” that “were found in close proxim-

ity to controlled substances or to instrumentalities of crimi-

nal conduct.” Id. § 10(6)(a), (b).

In other words, to the extent that the original text

of Article XV, section 10, reflected an intent to closely align

civil forfeiture with criminal punishment of the owner, the

amendments in 2008 demonstrate an intent to attenuate

the alignment between the two processes. See Ursery, 518

Cite as 373 Or 82 (2024) 117

US at 289 (citing “probable cause” standard of proof as a

“distinctly civil” procedural mechanism, pointing to an

intent to authorize forfeiture as a civil, remedial sanction);

89 Firearms, 465 US at 366 (explaining the significance of

a decision to authorize a forfeiture remedy that “cannot be

said to be co-extensive with the criminal penalty”).

And in determining whether the civil forfeiture pro-

ceeding authorized under current Oregon law is intended to

be equivalent to a criminal punishment, we must consider

the intent of the voters who adopted the current constitu-

tional limitations, which the legislature then incorporated

into the current statutory framework. Taking into account

all of the indications of intent, we are not persuaded that

the forfeiture proceeding authorized under current law is

intended to be equivalent to the criminal punishment that

the Supreme Court would recognize as subject to the Double

Jeopardy Clause.

In sum, we have explained why the forfeiture that

the legislature authorized is neither intended to be criminal

punishment nor is so punitive in purpose and effect that it

must be viewed as criminal punishment for purposes of the

federal Double Jeopardy Clause. Claimant does not contend

that the legislatively authorized forfeiture is inconsistent

with the limitations that Article XV, section 10, imposes—

indeed, the legislature expressly incorporated those limita-

tions. And nothing about the provisions of Article XV, sec-

tion 10, or its adoption, rises to the “clearest proof” that is

required to overcome the presumption that the forfeiture

authorized by Oregon law is not punishment for purposes of

the Double Jeopardy Clause of the federal constitution. As

was true in Selness, claimant’s arguments fail to persuade

us that the civil in rem forfeiture authorized under current

Oregon law is distinguishable “for purposes of the present

analysis, from the forfeiture scheme that the Ursery court

held to be civil.” 334 Or at 542.

III. CONCLUSION

Civil forfeiture under ORS chapter 131A is neither

intended to be criminal punishment nor is the overall scheme

so punitive in purpose or effect as to persuade us that the

118 Yamhill County v. Real Property

statutes amount to criminal punishment for the purpose

of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals

and remand to that court for consideration of claimant’s

unaddressed assignments of error.13

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed,

and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further

proceedings.

13

Claimant raised 53 assignments of error in the Court of Appeals, but the

court’s resolution of the double jeopardy challenge made it unnecessary for the

court to address—and the court did not address—claimant’s remaining assign-

ments of error.