excessive fines clause in Washington

2025To trigger the protection of the excessive fines clause, “a sanction must be a ‘fine’ and it must be ‘excessive.’ ” Id. at 162 .

2025To trigger the excessive fines clause, a sanction must be a “fine,” and it must be “excessive.” City of Seattle v. Long, 198 Wn.2d 136 , 162-63, 493 P.3d 94 (2021).

2021Therefore, the first step in an excessive fines inquiry is whether the state action is “punishment.” State v. Clark, 124 Wn.2d 90, 102 , 875 P.2d 613 (1994), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Catlett, 133 Wn.2d 355 , 945 P.2d 700 (1997); Austin, 509 U.S. at 610 .

2018“The first step in an excessive fines claim is to demonstrate the state action is ‘punishment.’” State v. Clark, 124 Wn.2d 90, 102 , 875 P.2d 613 (1994), overruled on other grounds by State v. Catlett, 133 Wn.2d 355 , 945 P.2d 700 (1997).

2021Therefore, the first step in an excessive fines inquiry is whether the state action is “punishment.” State v. Clark, 124 Wn.2d 90, 102 , 875 P.2d 613 (1994), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Catlett, 133 Wn.2d 355 , 945 P.2d 700 (1997); Austin, 509 U.S. at 610 .

2018“The first step in an excessive fines claim is to demonstrate the state action is ‘punishment.’” State v. Clark, 124 Wn.2d 90, 102 , 875 P.2d 613 (1994), overruled on other grounds by State v. Catlett, 133 Wn.2d 355 , 945 P.2d 700 (1997).

2018A. Eighth Amendment Prohibition on Excessive Fines9 An Excessive Fines Clause claim “involves a genuine constitutional issue.” WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d at 603 .

2018A. Eighth Amendment Prohibition on Excessive Fines9 An Excessive Fines Clause claim “involves a genuine constitutional issue.” WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d at 603 .

2015The Evergreen Supreme Court has held that an Excessive Fines Clause claim "involves a genuine constitutional issue." State v. WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d 595, 603 , 980 P.2d 1257 (1999).

2015The Evergreen Supreme Court has held that an Excessive Fines Clause claim "involves a genuine constitutional issue." State v. WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d 595, 603 , 980 P.2d 1257 (1999).

1997Relying on Halper "that civil proceedings may advance punitive and remedial goals, and, conversely, that both punitive and remedial goals may be served by criminal penalties,” Austin, 113 S. Ct. at 2806 (citing Halper, 490 U.S. at 447 ), the Court held: [T]he question is not, as the United States would have it, whether forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment.

1997Relying on Halper "that civil proceedings may advance punitive and remedial goals, and, conversely, that both punitive and remedial goals may be served by criminal penalties," Austin, 509 U.S. at 610 , 113 S.Ct. at 2806 (citing Halper, 490 U.S. at 447 , 109 S.Ct. at 1901 ), the Court held: [T]he question is not, as the United States would have it, whether forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment.

2025State v. Grocery Mfr.s Ass’n, 198 Wn.2d 888 , 899, 502 P.3d 806 (2022) (GMA II).

2024Id. at 374-75 . 4 No. 57575-2-II EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSE Essex argues that the $5,000 fine violates the excessive fines clause as Essex is an indigent defendant.

2023App. 2d 1 , 10, 530 P.3d 1048 (2023) (quoting Long, 198 Wn.2d at 163).

2023That case involved whether the defendant was entitled to a jury determination of the facts essential to restitution. 155 Wn.2d at 277 .

2023And Harris involved the definition of “punishment” for purposes of double jeopardy, not for purposes of the excessive fines clause. 151 Wn.

2021Though not uniformly accepted, many state courts applied this understanding of the excessive fines clause. 14 For example, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he duration and quantity of each [fine]” depends on the “aggravation, 14 See McLean, supra, at 885 & n.195 (citing State v. Staub, 182 La. 1040, 1044-45 , 162 So. 766 (1935) (“What constitutes an excessive fine for the violation of a penal statute depends in part . . . upon the ability of the defendant to pay.

2021Though not uniformly accepted, many state courts applied this understanding of the excessive fines clause. 14 For example, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he duration and quantity of each [fine]” depends on the “aggravation, 14 See McLean, supra, at 885 & n.195 (citing State v. Staub, 182 La. 1040, 1044-45 , 162 So. 766 (1935) (“What constitutes an excessive fine for the violation of a penal statute depends in part . . . upon the ability of the defendant to pay.

2021App. 139, 153 , 282 P.3d 8 (2012) (“When assessing the severity of a defendant’s forfeiture, courts consider the amount of the forfeiture and the effect of the forfeiture on the defendant.” (citing United States v. Levesque, 546 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2008); Browning-Ferris, 492 U.S. at 266-67 )); Commonwealth v. 1997 Chevrolet, 106 A.3d 836, 871 (Pa. 2014) (“the excessive fines analysis . . . requires . . . a thorough examination of every property owner’s circumstances”); Rachel J.

2021A fine which in one case would be only slight punishment, because easily paid, might in another case be excessive, because its payment would be ruinous to the convict.”); People v. Hershey Farms, Inc., 175 Misc. 641, 643 , 24 N.Y.S.2d 163 (Sup. Ct. 1941) (quoting 15 AM.

2021A fine which in one case would be only slight punishment, because easily paid, might in another case be excessive, because its payment would be ruinous to the convict.”); People v. Hershey Farms, Inc., 175 Misc. 641, 643 , 24 N.Y.S.2d 163 (Sup. Ct. 1941) (quoting 15 AM.

2021The relevant question, according to the Court, was whether a sanction is “simply” or “purely” remedial or whether it has any punitive characteristics, in which case it “must be considered a punishment for the purpose of the excessive fines clause.” State v. McClendon, 131 Wn.2d 853, 883 , 935 P.2d 1334 (1997) (plurality opinion); see also Austin, 509 U.S. at 621 .

2021The relevant question, according to the Court, was whether a sanction is “simply” or “purely” remedial or whether it has any punitive characteristics, in which case it “must be considered a punishment for the purpose of the excessive fines clause.” State v. McClendon, 131 Wn.2d 853, 883 , 935 P.2d 1334 (1997) (plurality opinion); see also Austin, 509 U.S. at 621 .

2021App. 139, 153 , 282 P.3d 8 (2012) (“When assessing the severity of a defendant’s forfeiture, courts consider the amount of the forfeiture and the effect of the forfeiture on the defendant.” (citing United States v. Levesque, 546 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2008); Browning-Ferris, 492 U.S. at 266-67 )); Commonwealth v. 1997 Chevrolet, 106 A.3d 836, 871 (Pa. 2014) (“the excessive fines analysis . . . requires . . . a thorough examination of every property owner’s circumstances”); Rachel J.

2019Under the excessive fines clause, civil penalties may not be “grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant’s offense.” United States v. Bajakaiian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 , 119 S. Ct. 2028 141 L.

2018“The notion of punishment, as we commonly understand it, cuts across the division between the civil and the criminal law.” Austin, 509 U.S. at 610 . “[C]ivil proceedings may advance punitive as well as remedial goals.” Austin, 509 U.S. at 610 . “‘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.’” Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635, 1645 , 198 L.

2018“The notion of punishment, as we commonly understand it, cuts across the division between the civil and the criminal law.” Austin, 509 U.S. at 610 . “[C]ivil proceedings may advance punitive as well as remedial goals.” Austin, 509 U.S. at 610 . “‘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.’” Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635, 1645 , 198 L.