This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was indicted on four counts of violating South Dakota's drug laws. D pled guilty to one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to seven years. P filed an in rem action seeking forfeiture of D's mobile home and auto body shop under 21 U.S.C. §§881(a)(4) and (a)(7). P moved for summary judgment. The facts of the crime showed that D met Keith Engebretson at D's body shop and agreed to sell cocaine to Engebretson. D left the shop, went to his mobile home, and returned to the shop with two grams of cocaine which he sold to Engebretson. Police executed a search warrant on the body shop and mobile home and discovered small amounts of marijuana and cocaine, a .22 caliber revolver, drug paraphernalia, and approximately $4,700 in cash. D argued that forfeiture of the properties would violate the Eighth Amendment. The court entered summary judgment for P and D appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed but it thought that 'the principle of proportionality should be applied in civil actions that result in harsh penalties. It then reasoned if the constitution allows in rem forfeiture to be visited upon innocent owners . . . the constitution hardly requires proportionality review of forfeitures. It affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. D contends that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to in rem civil forfeiture proceedings.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.