Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of New Brighton v. 2000 Ford Excursion VIN 1FMNU43S2YEA74156

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 6, 2001No. C1-00-1064Published

1DissentRandall, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The question is close, but I conclude that the forfeiture of Barnes’s car, on these facts, is in violation of the federal and state constitutional protections against excessive fines. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII; see also Minn. Const. Art. I, § 5 (both stating “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted”) (emphasis added).

The State of Minnesota faced the issue head on in State v. Rewitzer, 617 N.W.2d 407, 412 (Minn.2000). As the majority concedes, in Rewitzer, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Solem v. HelmSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  3. Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  4. State v. RewitzerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  5. Carousel Automobiles, Inc. v. GheritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API