ÿWPCzQ %ÅÚÓC.Oæ/ gœ’øN7ûçN®ç•ï.|ÐwXÿÎå€L>á*7íí?~ß÷‘~Ÿg´öñªaX¦E&YšKŸjô)W(NýÍGZvo-G¹¡ƒ¬0Ém˜ýûƒ«í×#°{ÙB†&–j~U Ý bje$íéYâüÈê´$9!fHceˆL•^—ÙF6çñ£ Žœ]ÏDGêvµDL÷IË e㉯Æð×b£:Œd­Œ­ß Å’ä[÷Fj¶üe±¯°{\Žå|= C"+ ¸^øÐj6UÝVÞè#Sr¤ 4Á«†ñrúûÚ…&úÇÒ;„`—6­ˆ)À W!åø¾(!WÎÙ†²* h³ß¶Pü¬®K±Ð\Bƒù‰â%•æ˜ ¯…[3†»+j´,FéµQ0½$&Åcy—»õwm›™ $on«,›šëP¹GsL\®¼9ÃxDM캛ï„ç»­¸Ðc£¬_æ“jþ—µ¦Ù_ZÙ{:ðÃÝ0ã7•j“Tþ[ D&»@{â¼ÝÞjù¯Hâ¯%U’uœ’›·d°-u¦¿ß/¢w «‰(o‘/«¸ªˇ¥üáÀBÉ OÈIĤ‘å²11¸¡ús'Hb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U?N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 0D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'UNíN;W=ä”Ex#z¯|LòÈ-ºuç \"dl#3Ð&ÿ(ˆ,@Š1LÊ59ª9óÈ<^»>BA/[DdŠFîGîGîGbmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmLmL 0ëuLuLuLuL B`M`M 0¤}M D5!N D-VN 0KƒNƒN ASÎNÆ!O 0¤çO 0D‹P A«ÏP˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»n’+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+1”õ£ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular MÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€one„year€mandatory€revocation€conclusion€is€consistent€with€other€statutes.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„Ð ° Ð502(f)(3),€which€provides€for€application€for€a€new€license€one€year€after€revocation;€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„Ð tÄ Ð502(a)(1),€which€authorizes€the€Department€to€suspend€a€license€ð ðupon€a€showing€by€its€records€or€other€sufficientÐ 8ˆ Ðevidenceðð€that€the€licensee€ð ðhas€committed€an€offense€for€which€mandatory€revocation€of€license€is€required€uponÐ üL Ðconviction,ðð€refers€to€the€ð ðtime€of€mandatory€revocation.ðð€€€Similarly,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(b)€provides€thatÐ À Ðif€the€department€receives€a€record€of€conviction€of€a€person€for€driving€while€a€license€was€revoked€for€specifiedÐ „Ô Ðreasons,€including€a€DUI€conviction,€the€department€ð ðshall€extend€the€revocation€for€an€additional€period€of€one€year.ðð€Ð H ˜ Ð ÚÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€precise€argument€made€by€Ms.€Hawks€was€raised€inòò€State€v.€Ô_ÔSneedÔ_Ô,€óóNo.€03C01„9605„CC„00195,€1996Ð ° ÐWL€512094€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€Sept.€4,€1996),€wherein€the€defendantððs€license€had€been€revoked€for€one€year€in€1991Ð tÄ Ðas€a€consequence€of€his€conviction€of€first€offense€of€driving€while€intoxicated.€€He€was€given€a€citation€for€driving€onÐ 8ˆ Ða€canceled€license€in€1994,€ð ðsome€twenty„seven€months€after€his€driving€revocation€had€expired.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€*1.€€In€a€petitionÐ üL Ðfor€post„conviction€relief,€the€defendant€alleged€he€should€have€been€charged€with€driving€without€a€valid€license€ratherÐ À Ðthan€driving€on€a€canceled€or€revoked€license.€€The€appellate€court€did€not€reach€that€issue.€€ Ý ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€court€may,€however,€order€the€issuance€of€a€restricted€driver€license€in€certain€circumstances.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ° ÐAnn.€ðð€55„10„403(d). ¥Ý ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAfter€a€second€or€subsequent€conviction€for€DUI,€however,€prior€to€reissuance€of€any€revoked€license,€theÐ ° ÐDepartment€must€require€evidence€of€completion€of€alcohol€or€drug€abuse€education€or€of€treatment.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€CodeÐ tÄ ÐAnn.€ðð€55„50„502(c)(1).€ rÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBoth€provisions€provide€that€excessive€bail€ð ðshall€not€be€required,€nor€excessive€fines€imposed,€nor€cruel€andÐ ° Ðunusual€punishments€inflicted.ðð€€òò€Stuart€v.€State€Depððt€of€Safetyóó,€963€S.W.2d€28,€34€(Tenn.€1998). èÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOther€property€belonging€to€Mr.€Stuart€had€been€forfeited,€but€the€Court€found€that€property€was€not€subjectÐ ° Ðto€the€Excessive€Fines€Clause€because€they€were€proceeds€of€illegal€drug€transactions;€because€Mr.€Stuart€was€neverÐ tÄ Ðentitled€to€such€proceeds,€their€forfeiture€is€not€punitive.€€òòSee€Stuartóó,€963€S.W.2d€at€34. #Ý ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note,€however,€that€other€statutes€speak€in€terms€of€ð ðreinstating€the€driving€privileges€and/or€reissuing€aÐ ° Ðdriver€license,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann€ðð€55„50„303(b),€ð ðreissuance€of€any€license€revoked€because€of€a€conviction,ðð€Tenn.Ð tÄ ÐCode€Ann€ðð€55„50„502(c)(1),€and€ð ðhave€such€license€or€privilege€renewed€or€restored,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann€ðð€55„50„Ð 8ˆ Ð502(f)(3).€€The€Departmentððs€official€records€reflect€the€status€of€Ms.€Hawksððs€license€as€ð ðreinstated.ðð€€The€parties€alsoÐ üL Ðreferred€to€reinstatement.€We€do€not€think€these€references€change€the€nature€of€a€revoked€license. kÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„12„131,€which€makes€the€offense€of€driving€while€a€license€is€revoked€forÐ ° Ðfailure€to€comply€with€various€requirements€in€the€financial€responsibility€laws€a€Class€B€misdemeanor. Ý ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401€actually€defines€the€offense€as€driving€under€the€influence€of€intoxicants€andÐ ° Ðdrugs. ZÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôîmòòôîmÔAs€our€Supreme€Court€has€noted,€ð ðexcessive€fines€analysis€does€not€automatically€condemn€all€remedialÐ ° Ðmeasures€merely€for€being€punitive€in€part,€because€it€further€examines€whether€the€sanction€is€proportional€to€the€gravityÐ tÄ Ðof€the€defendantððs€conduct€and€culpability.€òò€óóBy€making€this€additional€inquiry€into€the€proportionality€of€the€fine,€analysisÐ 8ˆ Ðunder€the€Excessive€Fines€Clause€makes€appropriate€allowance€for€those€sanctions€that€primarily€serve€remedialÐ üL Ðpurposes.ððÔ#†ôîmòòôîm~#Ô€òòÔ‡ôîmòòôîmÔ€Davis,€óó54€S.W.3d€at€263.Ô#†ôîmòòôîmü#Ô )Ý ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€certain€counties,€the€minimum€mandatory€incarceration€may€be€replaced€by€200€hours€or€public€service.€Ð ° ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(n). õÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€In€addition€to€the€fees€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„12„114(c),€a€person€obtaining€a€new€or€reinstatedÐ ° Ðlicense€when€proof€of€financial€responsibility€is€required€must€also€pay€the€fees€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„12„129.€Ð tÄ ÐIn€apparent€recognition€of€the€barrier€presented€by€this€combination€of€fees€required€to€obtain€a€new€or€reinstated€licenseÐ 8ˆ Ðafter€revocation,€the€General€Assembly€has€authorized€reinstatement€of€a€license€on€an€installment€payment€plan,Ð üL Ðeffective€January€1,€2001.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„12„129(g).€€This€option€was€not€available€to€Ms.€Hawks.€€Also,€Tenn.Ð À ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€55„30„303(b)€requires€payment€of€all€costs€and€fines€in€the€trial€court€before€driving€privileges€may€beÐ „Ô Ðreinstated€when€a€condition€has€required€revocation. ~Ý ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Although€the€trial€court€noted€that€Ms.€Hawks€was€only€charged€with€driving€without€a€license,€we€are€unableÐ ° Ðto€find€any€reference€to€the€criminal€proceedings€except€that€contained€in€a€Motion€for€Reconsideration€filed€with€theÐ tÄ ÐCommissioner€of€Safety€by€Ms.€Hawksððs€counsel€after€the€final€order€of€forfeiture.€€That€Motion€recites€that€ð ðwhen€theÐ 8ˆ Ðspeeding€and€driving€on€a€revoked€charges€were€brought€before€the€Court€for€disposition,€the€speeding€charge€wasÐ üL Ðdismissed€and€the€driving€on€a€revoked€was€lowered€to€driving€without€a€license€on€her€person,ðð€an€offense€for€whichÐ À Ðforfeiture€is€not€available.€€Pleadings,€however,€are€not€evidence,€and€no€evidence€regarding€the€disposition€of€theÐ „Ô Ðcriminal€charges€was€introduced€at€the€administrative€hearing,€where€Ms.€Hawks€was€unrepresented.€€As€the€trial€courtÐ H ˜ Ðalso€noted,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(h)(2)€is€explicit€that€a€conviction€is€not€required.€€Forfeiture€is€triggered€byÐ  \ Ðarrest€or€citation€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€and€€the€Department€must€prove€that€the€person€drove€while€his€or€herÐ Ð  Ðlicense€was€revoked€for€DUI.€€ 6Ý ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Tennessee€Financial€Responsibility€Law,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€55„12„101€òòet€seqóó.€establishes€requirements,Ð ° Ðincluding€liability€insurance,€cash€deposit,€or€bond€in€stated€amounts,€for€the€purpose€of€protecting€victims€of€personalÐ tÄ Ðinjury€or€property€damage€resulting€from€a€vehicle,€from€financial€loss.€€Interestingly,€persons€who€violate€a€number€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€specific€requirements€of€that€chapter€subject€their€driver€licenses€to€revocation€or€suspension.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€Tenn.€CodeÐ üL ÐAnn.€ðð€55„12„108,€115„118,€134„135.€€Violations€without€specific€penalties€€are€punishable€as€Class€A€misdemeanorsÐ À Ðòòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„12„135(b),€and€driving€on€a€license€which€has€been€revoked€for€failure€to€comply€with€theÐ „Ô ÐFinancial€Responsibility€Law€is€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„12„131. BÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„502(f)(3)€contains€similar€language:€Ð ° ÐÌà8  àAny€person€whose€license€or€privilege€to€drive€a€motor€vehicle€on€the€public€highways€has€beenÐ 8ˆ Ðrevoked€shall€not€be€entitled€to€have€such€license€or€privilege€renewed€or€restored€unless€theÐ üL Ðrevocation€was€for€a€cause€which€has€been€removed,€except€that€after€the€expiration€of€one€(1)€yearÐ À Ðor€the€period€of€suspension€prescribed€by€a€court€from€the€date€on€which€the€revoked€license€wasÐ „Ô Ðsurrendered€to€and€received€by€the€department,€such€person€may€make€application€for€a€new€licenseÐ H ˜ Ðas€provided€by€law.€.€.€.   Ý ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€sentencing€statute€authorized€a€fine€of€not€less€than€$3000.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concludedÐ ° Ðthat€the€legislatureððs€failure€to€establish€a€maximum€fine€rendered€the€statute€òòper€seóó€unconstitutional€under€the€prohibitionÐ tÄ Ðon€excessive€fines.€€òòTayloróó,€2001€WL€427651,€at€*4.€€One€member€of€the€panel€dissented€from€the€majorityððs€findingÐ 8ˆ Ðof€a€constitutional€infirmity€in€the€statute€itself€on€the€basis€that€it€is€the€sentence,€not€the€statute,€which€is€subject€toÐ üL Ðreview€as€an€excessive€fine.€€The€dissent€also€favored€refraining€from€passing€on€the€constitutionality€of€a€statute€becauseÐ À Ðsuch€determination€was€not€necessary€to€resolution€of€the€case.€€òòIdóó.€at€*5„6.€ éÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€does€not€include€any€evidence€that€Ms.€Hawks€was€convicted€or€punished€by€a€court€for€theÐ ° Ðoffense€of€driving€on€a€license€revoked€for€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô.€€There€is€a€statement€by€counsel€that,€in€fact,€she€was€not€even€chargedÐ tÄ Ðwith€that€offense,€but€was€charged€with€driving€without€a€license.€ TÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTennesseeððs€financial€responsibility€statutes€are€intended€to€provide€an€effective€means€of€enforcing€paymentÐ ° Ðof€automobile„caused€damage€claims.€€òòÔ_ÔBurressÔ_Ô€v.€Sandersóó,€31€S.W.3d€259,€263€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Generally,Ð tÄ Ðmotorists€involved€in€serious€accidents€are€required€to€prove€their€ability€to€pay€damages€or€face€the€loss€of€their€drivingÐ 8ˆ Ðprivileges.€€òòIdóó. 8Ý ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhen€a€license€is€suspended€or€revoked€because€of€a€conviction€(of€various€offenses),€proof€of€financialÐ ° Ðresponsibility,€passage€of€driver€license€examination,€and€payment€of€a€restoration€fee€are€required€as€conditionsÐ tÄ Ðprecedent€to€restoration€of€any€license.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€55„12„114€and€„116.€€ð ðAny€person€convicted€of€driving€onÐ 8ˆ Ða€revoked€license€pursuant€to€ðð€55„50„504,€when€the€original€suspension€or€revocation€was€made€for€a€violation€of€anÐ üL Ðoffense€not€requiring€mandatory€revocationðð€are€required€to€pay€a€lower€restoration€fee.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€€ðð€55„12„Ð À Ð114(c). %Ý ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€statute€requires€the€two€day€incarceration€and€authorizes€the€greater€fine€upon€conviction€for€driving€atÐ ° Ða€time€when€the€license€was€revoked€due€to€a€conviction€for€vehicular€assault€under€ðð€39„13„106€or€vehicular€homicideÐ tÄ Ðunder€ðð€39„13„213,€the€same€treatment€given€conviction€for€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€under€ðð€55„10„401.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann€ðð€55„50„504. ZÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€vehicle€used€in€a€second€or€subsequent€violation€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€intoxicants,€is€subjectÐ ° Ðto€forfeiture€in€circumstances€described€by€statute.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(k). uÝ ƒR€$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBecause€we€consider€the€other€factors€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€under€òòÔ_ÔBajakajianÔ_Ôóó,€€we€have€not€analyzed€€harshness€of€theÐ ° Ðforfeiture€to€Ms.€Hawks€and€her€family,€as€provided€in€òòStuartóó.€€As€the€court€stated€in€òòStuartóó,€ð ða€forfeited€vehicle€may€beÐ tÄ Ðworth€little,€but€undue€hardship€may€still€result€if€the€claimantððs€family€cannot€afford€to€replace€it€and€has€no€other€meansÐ 8ˆ Ðof€transportation.ðð€€òòStuartóó,€963€S.W.2d€at€36.€€The€record€indicates€that€Ms.€Hawks€had€little€income,€few€assets,€andÐ üL Ðlived€in€a€subsidized€housing€project€with€her€four€children.€€Her€monthly€income€was€$264,€and€her€net€worth€wasÐ À Ð$2000.€€The€trial€court€found€that€ð ðthe€petitioner€did€not€have€the€financial€ability€to€replace€the€forfeited€vehicle€withoutÐ „Ô Ðundue€hardship.ðð€€The€evidence€supports€that€finding.Ð H ˜ Ð- ù-(|G2€$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîmò»»Ô d(|3‡s$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡s$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼K»»»ÔÑ8€ ¹XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îNTKÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼K»îîNT #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€12,€1999€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X ¹X»¼KÔÌò òÔ#†¼K»XX ¹õ#ÔMARIE€HAWKS€v.€MICHAEL€C.€GREENE,Ð úJ ÐCOMMISSIONER€OF€TENNESSEEÐ  ^ ÐDEPARTMENT€OF€SAFETYÔ‡X ¹X»¼KÔó óÐ " r ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ " r Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„1320„III€€€€€€Ellen€Hobbs€Lyle,€ChancellorÐ ^  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ñ` AßÐ Ò"  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„02785„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„Filed€December€18,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¤` AßÐ ¥õ Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety,€appellant,€seeks€review€of€the€decision€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ  ð Ðfor€Davidson€County€reversing€the€Stateððs€order€forfeiting€the€vehicle€owned€by€Ms.€Marie€Hawks,Ð ŒÜ Ðappellee.€€Because€we€find€that€forfeiture€of€the€van,€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€constitutes€anÐ xÈ Ðexcessive€fine,€we€affirm€the€trial€court.Ð d´ ÐÓþÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ <Œ ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ (x ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼K»àX ¹³#ÔÔ‡X ¹X.¼KÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€Ben€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.JÔ_Ô,€M.S.,Ð P Ðjoined.Ð ì< ÐòòWilliam€C.€Koch,€JróóÔ#†¼K»XX ¹~#ÔÔ‡X ¹X»¼KÔ.,€filed€a€concurring€opinion.Ô#†¼K»XX ¹¯#ÔÔ‡X ¹X»¼KÔÐ Ø( ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Paula€D.€Godsey,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€forÐ ° Ðthe€appellant,€Michael€C.€Greene,€Commissioner€of€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety.Ð œ ì ÐÌFletcher€W.€Long,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€Wesley€MacNeil€Oliver,€New€Orleans,€Louisiana,€for€theÐ t"Ä! Ðappellee,€Marie€Hawks.Ð `#°" ÐÌÓOÓò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼K»XX ¹ #ÔÔ‡X ¹X»¼KÔÐ 8%ˆ $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼K»XX ¹ÿ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X ¹X»¼KÔà  àOn€April€25,€1996,€Ms.€Hawksððs€driver€license€was€revoked€by€the€Tennessee€DepartmentÐ '`"& Ðof€Safety€(ð ðthe€Departmentðð)€as€the€result€of€a€DUI€conviction€on€March€28,€1996.€€Although€sheÐ ü'L#' Ðbecame€eligible€to€reinstate€her€license€or€apply€for€a€new€license€one€year€after€the€revocation,€sheÐ è(8$( Ðdid€not€do€so€until€December€of€1997.Ð Ô)$%) ÐÌà  àOn€September€10,€1997,€while€at€work,€Ms.€Hawks€received€information€that€her€one€yearÐ ¬+ü&+ Ðold€€child€was€sick€and€running€a€high€fever.€€She€left€work€and€received€another€page€that€her€fiveÐ ˜,è', Ðyear€old€son,€at€school,€was€also€sick€and€had€to€be€picked€up.€€On€her€way€to€pick€up€her€sick€Ð „-Ô(-ý Їchildren€to€take€them€to€the€doctor,€€Ms.€Hawks€was€stopped€for€speeding€by€the€Lakewood€Police.€Ð ° ÐWhen€asked€to€produce€her€driver€license,€Ms.€Hawks€told€the€police€officer€that€she€did€not€haveÐ œì Ða€license€as€it€had€been€revoked.€€Later,€Ms.€Hawks€stated€that,€although€she€was€aware€that€herÐ ˆØ Ðlicense€had€been€revoked,€she€had€been€driving€in€order€to€hold€a€job.€€She€viewed€the€job€as€anÐ tÄ Ðopportunity€to€improve€her€familyððs€situation€and€to€raise€the€money€necessary€to€pay€the€costs€andÐ `° Ðfees€necessary€to€obtain€a€new€or€reinstated€license.€€Ms.€Hawks€resided€in€a€subsidized€housingÐ L œ Ðproject,€has€four€children€and€has€no€other€family€residing€in€Nashville.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOn€September€16,€1997,€the€Department€issued€a€forfeiture€warrant€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÐ  ` ÐAnn.€ðð€55„50„504(h)(1).€€On€December€19,€1997,€Ms.€Hawks€ultimately€paid€the€fees€for€a€newÐ ü L  Ðlicense€and€completed€the€other€necessary€steps.€€She€was€issued€a€new€license.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àA€hearing€on€the€forfeiture€was€held€before€an€administrative€law€judge€(ð ðALJðð).€€Ms.€HawksÐ À  Ðwas€not€represented€by€counsel€at€the€hearing.€€After€considering€the€evidence,€the€ALJ€orderedÐ ¬ü  Ðforfeiture€of€Ms.€Hawksððs€van,€and€Ms.€Hawks€filed€a€petition€for€review€to€the€Chancery€Court.€Ð ˜è  ÐUpon€review,€the€trial€court€reversed€the€ALJððs€order€of€forfeiture€ruling€that€the€forfeiture€violatedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€Excessive€Fines€Clauses€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  ÓI.Ð H˜ ÐÓxÓÌà  àDecisions€of€administrative€agencies€are€reviewed€by€courts€under€the€standard€establishedÐ  p Ðin€the€Tennessee€Administrative€Procedures€Act.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322€(1998).€€€Generally,Ð  \ Ðthe€courtððs€review€is€limited€to€the€record,€and€the€courtððs€authority€to€reverse€an€agency€decision€isÐ øH Ðlimited€to€specific€situations€set€out€by€statute.€òòóó€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(g)€and€(h).€€The€trialÐ ä4 Ðcourt€herein€reversed€the€Departmentððs€forfeiture€decision€because€it€found,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ð  ÐAnn.€ðð€4„5„322€(h)(1),€that€ð ðthe€rights€of€the€petitioner€have€been€prejudiced€because€theÐ ¼  Ðadministrative€findings,€inferences,€conclusions€or€decisions€are€in€violation€of€constitutional€orÐ ¨ø Ðstatutory€provisions.ðð€€Because€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€forfeiture€violates€theÐ ”ä Ðconstitutional€prohibition€on€excessive€fines€presents€a€question€of€law,€our€review€isòò€de€novoóó.Ð €Ð ÐÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹Ôð ð[T]he€question€whether€a€fine€is€constitutionally€excessive€calls€for€the€application€of€aÐ l¼ Ðconstitutional€standard€to€the€facts€of€a€particularÔ#†X ¹XXX ¹ÿ#ÔÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹Ô€case,€and€in€this€context€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€thatÐ X ¨ Ðquestion€is€appropriate.ðð€€òòÔ#†X ¹XXX ¹è#ÔUnited€States€v.€Bajakajianóó,€524€U.S.€321,€336„37,€n.10,€118€S.€Ct.€2028,Ð D!” Ð2037„38€n.10€(1998).Ô‡X ¹XXX ¹Ôòòóó€Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹ #ÔÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€forfeiture€of€Ms.€Hawksððs€vehicle€was€ordered€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„Ð $X" Ð504(h),€which€provides:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  à(1)€The€vehicle€used€in€the€commission€of€a€personððs€violation€of€ðð€55„50„504,€whenÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€original€suspension€or€revocation€was€made€for€a€violation€of€€ðð€55„10„401[DUI],Ð ¸'#& Ðor€a€statute€in€another€state€prohibiting€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€Ð¤(ô#'Ð Ð  Ðà8  àis€subject€to€seizure€and€forfeiture€in€accordance€with€the€procedure€established€inÐ )à$( Ðtitle€40,€chapter€33,€part€2.€€The€department€is€designated€as€the€applicable€agency,Ð |*Ì%) Ðas€defined€by€ðð€40„33„202,€for€all€forfeitures€authorized€by€this€subsection.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà8  à(2)€For€purposes€of€clarifying€the€provisions€of€this€subsection€and€consistent€withÐ ° Ðthe€overall€remedial€purpose€of€the€asset€forfeiture€procedure,€a€vehicle€is€subject€toÐ œì Ðseizure€and€forfeiture€upon€the€arrest€or€citation€of€a€person€for€driving€while€suchÐ ˆØ Ðpersonððs€driving€privileges€are€cancelled,€suspended,€or€revoked.€€A€conviction€forÐ tÄ Ðthe€criminal€offense€of€driving€while€such€personððs€driving€privileges€are€cancelled,Ð `° Ðsuspended€or€revoked€is€not€required.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€dispute€that€Ms.€Hawks€was€previously€convicted€of€violation€of€Tenn.€CodeÐ $ t ÐAnn.€ðð€55„10„401€and€that€her€driver€license€had€originally€been€revoked€for€that€violation.€€ThereÐ  ` Ðis,€however,€dispute€about€the€interpretation€and€application€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504,€aÐ ü L  Ðviolation€of€which€is€a€prerequisite€to€forfeiture€by€the€explicit€terms€of€the€forfeiture€statute.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1)€defines€the€offense€in€question€as€driving€on€public€waysÐ À  Ðð ðat€a€time€when€the€personððs€privilege€to€do€so€is€canceled,€suspended€or€revoked€because€of€aÐ ¬ü  Ðconviction€for€.€.€.€driving€while€intoxicated€under€ðð€55„10„401.€.€.€.ðð€€Thus,€to€subject€a€vehicle€toÐ ˜è  Ðforfeiture,€the€driver€must€be€driving€at€a€time€when€his€or€her€license€ð ðisðð€revoked€because€of€a€DUIÐ „Ô  Ðconviction.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€initial€question€presented€by€these€statutes,€by€the€trial€courtððs€holding,€and€by€Ms.Ð H˜ ÐHawksððs€argument€is€whether€a€person€whose€license€has€in€the€past€been€revoked€for€driving€whileÐ 4„ Ðunder€the€influence€of€intoxicants€violates€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1)€by€driving€withoutÐ  p Ða€license€regardless€of€the€length€of€time€which€has€elapsed€between€the€revocation€and€theÐ  \ Ðsubsequent€offense.€€An€analysis€of€this€question€requires€an€examination€of€the€statutory€schemeÐ øH Ðgoverning€the€privilege€of€driving€on€Tennesseeððs€public€ways.Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð ¼  ÐÓÕ(ÓÌà  àWe€begin€with€the€basic€requirement€that,€in€order€to€drive€a€motor€vehicle€on€the€highwaysÐ ”ä Ðin€the€state,€a€person€must€have€a€valid€driver€license€issued€by€the€Department.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð €Ð Ððð€55„50„301.€€A€driver€may€lose€his€or€her€license€for€various€reasons,€and€only€the€Department€mayÐ l¼ Ðrevoke€or€suspend€a€license.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„502;€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€197€Tenn.€17,€19,€270Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€340,€341€(1954)€(while€a€trial€court€is€required€to€prohibit€someone€convicted€of€drivingÐ D!” Ðunder€the€influence€from€driving€for€a€specified€term,€that€prohibition€does€not€constitute€aÐ 0"€  Ðrevocation€of€the€personððs€license,€and€the€Department€has€authority€to€revoke€a€license);€òòState€v.Ð #l! ÐLodenóó,€920€S.W.2d€261,€264€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(a€trial€court€does€not€have€authority€to€revokeÐ $X" Ða€driver€license).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€Department€is€statutorily€required€to€revoke€a€license€upon€receipt€of€evidence€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðlicensee€has€been€convicted€of€specified€offenses,€including€driving€while€under€the€influence€of€anÐ ¸'#& Ðintoxicant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„501(a)(2).€€Nothing€in€this€mandatory€revocation€statuteÐ ¤(ô#' Ðestablishes€a€specific€duration€for€the€revocation.€€However,€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„102(42)Ð )à$( Ðdefines€ð ðRevocation€of€driver€licenseðð€as:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àthe€termination€by€formal€action€of€the€department€of€a€personððs€driver€license€orÐ ° Ðprivilege€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€on€the€public€highways,€which€termination€shallÐ œì Ðnot€be€subject€to€renewal€or€restoration€except€that€an€application€for€a€new€licenseÐ ˆØ Ðmay€be€presented€and€acted€upon€by€the€department€after€the€expiration€of€at€leastÐ tÄ Ðone€(1)€year€after€the€date€of€revocation.€Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThus,€the€statute€establishes€a€mandatory€duration€of€revocation€of€one€year,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€during€whichÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€former€licensee€is€ineligible€for€reinstatement€of€a€license€or€issuance€of€a€new€license.׃°×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€InÐ $ t Ðaddition,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1)€requires€the€sentencing€court€to€enter€an€orderÐ  ` Ðprohibiting€a€person€convicted€for€the€first€time€of€DUI€from€driving€a€vehicle€in€the€State€for€aÐ ü L  Ðperiod€of€one€year.€€In€Ms.€Hawksððs€case,€she€had€been€convicted€of€DUI€on€March€28,€1996,€andÐ è 8  Ðher€license€was€revoked€by€the€Department€pursuant€to€that€conviction€on€April€25,€1996.€€She€wasÐ Ô$  Ðstopped€for€speeding€and€charged€with€driving€on€a€revoked€license€on€September€10,€1997,Ð À  Ðobviously€a€time€outside€the€mandatory€revocation€period.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€question€is€whether€Ms.€Hawks€was€driving€ð ðat€a€time€whenðð€her€driving€privilege€wasÐ „Ô  Ðrevoked€because€of€her€DUI€conviction,€per€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1).€€Ms.€Hawks€assertsÐ pÀ Ðthat,€after€the€expiration€of€one€year,€her€license€was€no€longer€revoked€because€of€her€DUIÐ \¬ Ðconviction.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€because€the€one„year€revocation€for€DUI€had€expired,€Ð H˜ ÐMs.€Hawks€was€not€driving€at€a€time€when€her€license€was€revoked€because€of€the€DUI€conviction.Ð 4„ ÐRather,€the€court€determined€that€she€was€driving€at€a€time€when€her€license€was€canceled,Ð  p Ðsuspended,€or€revoked€(without€regard€to€cause),€a€separate€offense€defined€in€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1).Ð  \ ÐAt€the€time€of€the€seizure€of€Ms.€Hawksððs€vehicle,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1)€read:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àA€person€who€drives€a€motor€vehicle€on€any€public€highway€of€this€state€at€a€timeÐ Ð  Ðwhen€the€personððs€privilege€to€do€so€is€cancelled,€suspended,€or€revoked€commits€aÐ ¼  ÐClass€B€misdemeanor.€€A€person€who€drives€a€motor€vehicle€on€any€public€highwayÐ ¨ø Ðof€this€state€at€a€time€when€the€personððs€privilege€to€do€so€is€cancelled,€suspended€orÐ ”ä Ðâ ârevoked€because€of€a€conviction€for€vehicular€assault€under€ðð€39„13„106,€vehicularÐ €Ð Ðhomicide€under€ðð€39„13„213,€or€driving€while€intoxicated€under€ðð€55„10„401׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€shallÐ ° Ðâ âbe€punished€by€confinement€for€not€less€than€two€(2)€days€nor€more€than€six€(6)Ð œì Ðmonths,€and€there€may€be€imposed,€in€addition,€a€fine€of€not€more€than€one€thousandÐ ˆØ Ðdollars€($1,000).ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€determined€that€this€statute€created€two€offenses,€but€that€the€forfeiture€statuteÐ L œ Ðauthorized€forfeiture€for€a€violation€of€either€of€the€offenses€if€ð ðthe€original€suspension€or€revocationÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€made€for€a€violation€ofðð€the€DUI€statute.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(h)(1).€€The€court€foundÐ $ t Ðthat€Ms.€Hawksððs€vehicle€was€subject€to€forfeiture€under€the€statute.€€Thus,€the€distinction€made€byÐ  ` Ðthe€trial€court€regarding€the€specific€offense€was€not€determinative€to€that€court€of€whether€Ms.Ð ü L  ÐHawksððs€van€was€subject€to€forfeiture.€€However,€the€court€did€find€the€distinction€important€in€itsÐ è 8  Ðexcessive€fines€analysis€where€the€gravity€of€the€offense€is€a€relevant€factor.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àWe€agree€that€Ms.€Hawksððs€vehicle€was€subject€to€forfeiture,€but€do€not€agree€with€the€trialÐ ¬ü  Ðcourtððs€analysis€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1).€€While€we€agree€that€the€subsection€createsÐ ˜è  Ðtwo€separate€offenses,€depending€upon€the€cause€for€cancellation,€suspension€or€revocation€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðlicense,€we€can€find€no€basis€in€the€statute€for€the€distinction€between€driving€at€a€time€the€licenseÐ pÀ Ðis€revoked€and€driving€at€a€time€the€license€is€revoked€for€one€of€the€enumerated€offenses.€Ð \¬ ÐAdditionally,€even€though€Ms.€Hawksððs€argument€that€once€the€mandatory€revocation€time€periodÐ H˜ Ðhas€expired€a€person€is€no€longer€driving€ð ðat€a€time€whenðð€that€personððs€license€is€revoked€(whateverÐ 4„ Ðthe€cause),€but€instead€is€driving€without€a€valid€license,€has€some€logical€appeal,€we€are€nonethelessÐ  p Ðconvinced€that€this€distinction€is€also€not€supported€by€the€statutes.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€Department€takes€the€position€that€a€driverððs€license€which€is€revoked€remains€revokedÐ ä4 Ðuntil€the€driver€takes€the€necessary€steps€to€obtain€a€new€license.€€This€position€is€supported€by€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€55„50„102(42),€set€out€earlier€in€this€opinion.׃#×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€According€to€that€statute,€revocation€ofÐ ¼  Ða€driver€license€is€a€termination€of€the€holderððs€privilege€to€drive€on€public€ways€in€this€state.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðâ âstatute€clearly€states€that€a€termination€[terminated€license]€may€not€be€renewed€or€restored,€but€that,Ð ”ä Ðafter€the€mandatory€period,€a€new€license€may€be€applied€for.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€other€words,€revocation€is€aÐ ° Ðâ ânullification€which€is€without€duration.€€Once€a€license€is€revoked,€it€remains€revoked.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àUnder€that€analysis,€a€person€who€drives€without€a€license€at€any€time€after€his€or€her€licenseÐ tÄ Ðhas€been€revoked,€whether€within€or€without€the€mandatory€revocation€period,€€commits€the€offenseÐ `° Ðof€driving€while€the€license€is€revoked,€in€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(a).€€ThisÐ L œ Ðinterpretation€is€consistent€with€that€applied€in€the€context€of€criminal€prosecutions€for€the€offense.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐConviction€for€the€criminal€offense€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license€requires€proof€of€driving€on€aÐ $ t ÐTennessee€public€road€at€a€time€when€the€driverððs€privilege€to€do€so€is€canceled,€suspended€orÐ  ` Ðrevoked.€€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€947€S.W.2d€186,€189€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€The€second€element€canÐ ü L  Ðbe€proved€by€evidence€that€the€license€was€ð ðon€revoked€statusðð€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.Ð è 8  ÐMcDonaldóó,€No.€02C01„9206„CR„00126,€1993€WL€312698,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€18,€1993).€Ð Ô$  ÐFor€purposes€of€this€offense,€a€license€remains€on€revoked€status€from€the€time€it€is€revoked,Ð À  Ðregardless€of€the€amount€of€time€involved.׃d×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee€State€v.€Hamptonóó,€No.€03C„01„9503„CR„00107,Ð ¬ü  Ð1996€WL€366323,€at€*€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€July€3,€1996)€(òòperm.€app.€deniedóó)€(license€was€revokedÐ ˜è  Ðin€1986€and€defendant€was€arrested€in€1994);€òòState€v.€Akeóó,€No.€01C01„9309„CR„00297,€1995€WLÐ „Ô  Ð376724€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€22,€1995)€(license€revoked€March€17,€1989,€and€offense€committedÐ pÀ ÐApril€30,€1990);€òòState€v.€Northóó,€No.€01C01„9312„CC„00418,€1994€WL€474841,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð \¬ ÐApp.€Sept.€1,€1994)€(license€had€been€revoked€for€twelve€years,€defendant€had€continued€to€driveÐ H˜ Ðnonetheless,€and€was€convicted€for€the€eighth€time€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license).€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€reasoning€for€the€conclusion€that€a€license€remains€revoked€until€it€is€renewed€is€theÐ  \ Ðsame€as€that€set€out€above;€the€ability€to€drive€a€motor€vehicle€on€a€public€highway€is€not€a€right,€butÐ øH Ðis€a€revocable€privilege€that€is€granted€upon€compliance€with€statutory€licensing€procedures.€€òòStateÐ ä4 Ðv.€Booheróó,€978€S.W.2d€953,€956€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€€òòGoats€v.€Stateóó,€211€Tenn.€249,€252„53,Ð Ð  Ð364€S.W.2d€889,€891€(1963).€€Accordingly,€the€privilege€of€driving€on€Tennesseeððs€highways€is€notÐ ¼  Ðabsolute,€and€that€privilege€may€be€revoked.€€In€a€recent€opinion€dealing€with€a€nonresidentððsÐ ¨ø Ðassertion€that€his€possession€of€a€valid€license€from€another€state€coupled€with€expiration€of€the€one„Ð ”ä Ðyear€mandatory€period€of€revocation€of€his€Tennessee€driver€license€for€conviction€of€driving€underÐ €Ð Ðthe€influence€prohibited€his€conviction€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ l¼ Ðâ âAppeals€explained:Ð X ¨ Ðà8  àAdditionally,€just€as€a€residentððs€license€is€not€automatically€restored€at€the€expirationÐ ° Ðâ âof€the€revocation€period,€see€generally€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„502,€the€suspensionÐ œì Ðof€a€nonresidentððs€privilege€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€on€the€highways€of€this€stateÐ ˆØ Ðð ðdoes€not€automatically€spring€to€life€at€the€end€of€the€period€of€ineligibility,€as€if€theÐ tÄ Ðorder€never€had€been€entered€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòSee€Colorado€Dept.€of€Revenue,€Motor€VehicleÐ `° ÐDiv.€v.€Smithóó,€640€P.2d€1143,€1145€(Colo.€1982);€òòsee€also€State€v.€Banickióó,€933€P.2dÐ L œ Ð571,€573€(Ariz.€App.€1997)€(driving€privileges€not€automatically€restored).€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðcompletion€of€the€period€of€revocation€merely€makes€the€nonresident€driver€eligibleÐ $ t Ðfor€reinstatement€of€his€Tennessee€driving€privileges.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„Ð  ` Ð502(d)(1);€„€(e)(3);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Op.€Atty.€Gen.€No.€86„097€(May€19,€1986)Ð ü L  Ð(ð ð[o]nce€a€license€or€driving€privileges€have€been€suspended€under€this€chapter,€theÐ è 8  Ðmotorist€may€restore€his€privileges€by€satisfying€certain€requirements€which€usuallyÐ Ô$  Ðinclude€the€payment€of€a€restoration€fee.ðð)ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€the€proof€introduced€revealed€that€the€Appellantððs€driving€privilege€in€this€stateÐ ˜è  Ðwas€suspended.€€Absent€proof€of€compliance€with€reinstatement€procedures,€theÐ „Ô  Ðevidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€driving€while€license€revoked.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€No.€W1999„01001„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1843249,€at€*4„5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð H˜ ÐDec.€15,€2000)€(òòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€recommended€for€publication).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThus,€a€license€remains€revoked€until€it€is€reissued€after€compliance€with€statutoryÐ  \ Ðrequirements.€€A€person€who€drives€on€public€roads€after€revocation€of€his€or€her€license,€but€before€Ð øH Ðreissuance€or€renewal€of€a€license,€is€ð ðdriving€at€a€time€when€the€personððs€privilege€to€do€so€isÐ ä4 Ðcanceled,€suspended,€or€revokedðð€within€the€meaning€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1).€€WhenÐ Ð  Ðthe€original€revocation€was€due€to€a€conviction€for€DUI,€the€driving€privilege€remains€revokedÐ ¼  Ðð ðbecause€ofðð€that€conviction.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€history€of€the€General€Assemblyððs€actions€to€distinguish€the€offense€of€driving€on€aÐ €Ð Ðlicense€revoked€for€conviction€of€specific€offenses,€including€driving€under€the€influence,€from€theÐ l¼ Ðoffense€of€driving€on€a€license€revoked€for€any€other€reason,€through€enacting€enhanced€Ð X ¨ Ðpunishments€for€the€former,€also€supports€the€Departmentððs€interpretation.€€òòSeeóó€1992€Tenn.€Pub.Ð D!” ÐActs,€ch.€722;€1994€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€892.€€In€addition€to€these€general€actions,€one€specific€pieceÐ 0"€  Ðof€legislative€history€is€directly€relevant.€€In€1996€the€legislature€amended€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„Ð #l! Ð504€to€provide€for€the€seizure€and€forfeiture€of€vehicles€used€in€the€commission€of€the€offense€ofÐ $X" Ðdriving€at€a€time€when€a€personððs€license€is€revoked€for€DUI.€€During€debate€on€the€bill€whichÐ ô$D # Ðresulted€in€this€amendment,€now€codified€as€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€55„50„504(h),€the€sponsor€stated,Ð à%0!$ Ðð ðThereððs€a€certain€period€of€time€after€you€get€a€DUI€that€you€can€get€reinstated€and€get€your€licenseÐ Ì&"% Ðback€and€so€if€youððre€foolish€enough€not€to€go€and€get€your€license€back,€if€youððre€foolish€enoughÐ ¸'#& Ðto€have€a€DUI€and€drive€on€a€revoked€license,€yes€that€car€can€be€confiscated.ðð€€Senator€Cooper,Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòDiscussion€of€Senate€Bill€2594óó,€Apr.€11,€1996.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àWe€conclude€that€on€September€10,€1997,€Ms.€Hawks€was€driving€at€a€time€when€her€licenseÐ ° Ðâ âwas€revoked€because€of€her€prior€DUI€conviction.€€Therefore,€€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€Ð œì Ðconclusion€that€Ms.€Hawksððs€van€was€subject€to€forfeiture€under€the€provisions€of€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ˆØ Ððð€55„50„504(h).€€However,€any€such€forfeiture€must€meet€other€legal€standards.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð L œ ÐÓigÓÌà  àMs.€Hawks€argues,€and€the€trial€court€found,€that€the€forfeiture€of€her€van€violates€theÐ $ t Ðprohibition€on€excessive€fines€found€in€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÐ  ` Ðin€Article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€She€asserts€that€the€forfeiture€of€her€van€is€grosslyÐ ü L  Ðdisproportionate€to€the€gravity€of€the€offense€triggering€the€forfeiture.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€excessive€fines€prohibition€present€in€both€the€federal€and€state€constitutions€does€notÐ À  Ðprohibit€punishment.€€Rather,€it€ð ðlimits€the€governmentððs€power€to€extract€payments,€whether€in€cashÐ ¬ü  Ðor€in€kind,€ððas€punishment€for€some€offense.ðððð€€òòAustin€Ô‡X ¹XXX ¹Ôv.€United€Statesóó,€509€U.S.€602,€609„10,€113Ð ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔS.€Ct.Ô_Ô€2801,€2805€(1993)Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹k#Ôòòóó.òò€€óóThese€provisions€embody€a€historical€limitation€whose€roots€lie€inÐ „Ô  Ðreactions€to€abuses€by€royal€judges€in€Englandòò.€€Seeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Bajakajianóó,€524€U.S.€321,€335,Ð pÀ Ð118€Ô_ÔS.€Ct.Ô_Ô€2028,€2037€(1998).òò€óó€The€basic€principle€was€embodied€in€the€Magna€Carta€itself,€whichÐ \¬ Ðrequired€that€fines€should€be€proportional€to€the€offense€and€that€they€should€not€deprive€aÐ H˜ Ðwrongdoer€of€his€livelihood.òò€€Id.€óóÐ 4„ ÐÌÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹Ôà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€determined€in€òòAustin€v.€United€Statesóó,€509€U.S.€602,€113Ð  \ ÐÔ_ÔS.€Ct.Ô_Ô€2801€(1993),€that€the€Eighth€Amendmentððs€prohibition€on€excessive€fines€applied€toÐ øH Ðforfeitures€which€are€punitive,€including€civil€òòin€remóó€forfeitures.€òò€Austinóó,€509€U.S.€at€610,€113€Ô_ÔS.€Ct.Ô_ÔÐ ä4 Ðat€2806.€€In€òòStuart€v.€State€Depððt€of€Safetyóó,€€Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹òm#Ô963€S.W.2d€28€(Tenn.€1998)Ô‡X ¹XXX ¹Ô,€our€Supreme€Court€foundÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€excessive€fines€clause€of€Article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€was€coextensive€withÐ ¼  Ðits€federal€counterpart€in€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and,€therefore,€wasÐ ¨ø Ðapplicable€to€punitive€forfeitures,€even€though€the€forfeiture€proceedings€were€civil€in€nature.€€òòStuartóó,Ð ”ä Ð963€S.W.2d€at€34.Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹?p#ÔÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹Ô€€Our€Supreme€Court€has€recently€discussed€its€holding€in€òòStuartóó€in€terms€of€thoseÐ €Ð Ðsanctions€susceptible€to€analysis€under€the€excessive€fines€clause:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àAccording€to€excessive„fines€analysis€under€the€state€and€federal€constitutions,€anÐ D!” Ðotherwise€civil€sanction€can€become€a€ð ðfineðð€subject€to€constitutional€limitation€whenÐ 0"€  Ðthe€sanction€ð ðis,€at€least€in€part,€a€punitive€measure.ðð€€òòStuartóó,€963€S.W.2d€at€34;€òòseeÐ #l! Ðalso€United€States€v.€Bajakajianóó,€524€U.S.€321,€329€n.4,€118€Ô_ÔS.€Ct.Ô_Ô€2028,€141€L.€Ed.Ð $X" Ð2d€314€(1998)€(noting€that€Eighth€Amendment€analysis€begins€with€a€finding€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðcontested€sanction,€though€also€serving€some€remedial€purpose,€is€ð ðpunitive€in€partðð).Ð à%0!$ ÐAs€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€acknowledged,€a€sanction€is€ð ðpunitive€inÐ Ì&"% Ðpartðð€under€this€analysis€when€it€serves€either€retributive€or€deterrent€purposes.€€òòSeeÐ ¸'#& ÐAustinóó,€509€U.S.€at€610,€113€Ô_ÔS.€Ct.Ô_Ô€2801.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  Їà8  à.€.€.€.€As€can€be€seen€by€our€decision€in€òòStuartóó,€excessive„fines€analysis€can€be€appliedÐ ° Ðeven€to€those€sanctions€that€primarily€serve€remedial€purposes.€€òòSeeóó€963€S.W.2d€atÐ œì Ð34€(analyzing€civil€forfeitures).€ÐˆØÐ Ð  ÐÌòòChattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€248,€262„63€(Tenn.€2001).€€In€determining€whether€the€excessiveÐ `° Ðfines€prohibition€is€applicable€to€a€forfeiture,€the€question€is€not€whether€the€proceeding€was€òòin€remóóÐ L œ Ðor€òòin€personamóó€or€whether€the€forfeiture€resulted€from€criminal€or€civil€proceedings;€the€questionÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€whether€the€forfeiture€was,€even€in€part,€punitive.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òò€€Austinóó,€509€U.S.€at€610,€113€S.€Ct.€at€2801;Ð $ t ÐòòUnited€States€v.€$359,500óó,€25€F.€Supp.2d€140,€147„48€(W.D.N.Y.€1998).Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹;r#ÔÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹Ô€€Ms.€Hawksððs€van€wasÐ  ` Ðforfeited€because€of€her€violation€of€the€statute€prohibiting€€driving€at€a€time€when€her€license€wasÐ ü L  Ðrevoked€for€DUI€and€is,€therefore,€punitive€at€least€in€part.€€Consequently,€it€is€subject€to€analysis€ofÐ è 8  Ðwhether€it€violates€the€constitutional€prohibition€against€excessive€fines.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòAustinóó€determined€that€civil€forfeitures€wereÐ ¬ü  Ðsubject€to€the€excessive€fines€clause,€the€Court€did€not€in€that€opinion€establish€or€announce€a€testÐ ˜è  Ðto€apply€in€determining€the€constitutionality€of€a€particular€forfeiture.€€State€courts,€including€theÐ „Ô  ÐSupreme€Court€of€Tennessee,€began€to€fill€that€void.€€Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹{#ÔÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹ÔFinding€that€neither€the€U.S.€Supreme€CourtÐ pÀ Ðnor€any€Tennessee€court€had€established€a€test€for€determining€what€constitutes€an€excessive€fine,Ð \¬ Ðthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€announced€its€intention€to€define€such€a€standard€in€òòStuartóó,€Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹„~#Ô963Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2dÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹Ôòò€óóat€35.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€Court€considered€excessive€fines€tests€established€in€other€jurisdictions,€finding€thatÐ  \ Ðthose€tests€could€generally€be€described€in€two€categories:€an€instrumentality€test€and€a€multifactoredÐ øH Ðhybrid€of€the€instrumentality€test€and€a€proportionality€test,€which€ð ðessentially€compares€the€valueÐ ä4 Ðof€the€property€with€the€gravity€of€the€criminal€conduct.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€35.€€€The€court€fully€recognized€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€proportionality€test€ð ðmakes€the€excessive€fines€analysis€very€fact„specific,€thus€providing€lessÐ ¼  Ðguidance€and€uniformity,ðð€but€found€that€it€also€ð ðis€an€effective€mechanism€for€restraining€the€State,Ð ¨ø Ðwhich€has€a€strong€pecuniary€incentive€to€confiscate€the€most€property€ð!ð€and€the€most€valuableÐ ”ä Ðproperty€ð!ð€possible.ðð€òò€Idóó.€€Finally,€the€court€agreed€that€ð ðthe€very€word€ððexcessiveðð€plainlyÐ €Ð Ðcontemplates€some€comparison€of€the€fine€to€the€conduct€sought€to€be€punished€in€order€to€determineÐ l¼ Ðif€the€fine€violates€the€Eighth€Amendment.ðð€€òòId.€óó(quotingòò€Thorp€v.€Stateóó,€264€Ga.€712,€450€S.E.2dÐ X ¨ Ð416,€418€(1994).€€The€court€held:€€Ð D!” Ðà  àÔ#†X ¹XXX ¹ú#ÔÌà8  àTherefore,€we€conclude€that€any€analysis€under€the€excessive€fines€clause€mustÐ #l! Ðinclude€a€proportionality€test.€€Although€the€multifactored€analysis€is€described€inÐ $X" Ðvarious€ways,€courts€consistently€utilize€the€following€factors:Ðô$D #Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€the€harshness€of€the€penalty€compared€with€the€gravity€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âunderlying€offense;Ðœì` x` x ÐÌà8  àà0` Ð Ð à(2)€the€harshness€of€the€penalty€compared€with€the€culpability€of€the€ÐtÄ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà  àà ` àclaimant;€andÐ `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€the€relationship€between€the€property€and€the€offense,€includingÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhether€use€of€the€property€was€(a)€important€to€the€success€of€theÐ $ t Ðcrime,€(b)€deliberate€and€planned€or€merely€incidental€and€fortuitous,Ð  ` Ðand€(c)€extensive€in€terms€of€time€and€spatial€use.Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌà  àNo€single€factor€is€dispositive.Ð Ô$  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€35€(citations€omitted).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àA€few€months€after€the€òòStuartóó€decision,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€articulated€aÐ „Ô  Ðstandard€for€application€of€the€Eighth€Amendmentððs€excessive€fines€prohibition€to€a€forfeiture:€€ð ðaÐ pÀ Ðpunitive€forfeiture€violates€the€Excessive€Fines€Clause€if€it€is€grossly€disproportional€to€the€gravityÐ \¬ Ðof€a€defendantððs€offense.ðð€€òòBajakajianóó,€524€U.S.€at€334,€118€Ô_ÔS.€Ct.Ô_Ô€at€2036.€€In€applying€this€test,€trialÐ H˜ Ðand€appellate€courts€ð ðmust€compare€the€amount€of€the€forfeiture€to€the€gravity€of€the€defendantððsÐ 4„ Ðoffense.ðð€€òòIdóó.€524€U.S.€at€336„37,€118€S.€Ct.€at€2037„38.€€In€considering€ð ðjust€how€proportional€toÐ  p Ða€criminal€offense€a€fine€must€beðð€in€order€to€withstand€a€constitutionality€attack,€the€majority€of€theÐ  \ ÐCourt€determined€that€strict€proportionality€between€the€amount€of€the€forfeiture€and€the€gravity€ofÐ øH Ðan€offense€is€not€an€appropriate€standard.€€òòóó524€U.S.€at€336„37,€118€S.€Ct.€at€2037.€€The€CourtððsÐ ä4 Ðopinion€rests€on€its€fundamental€holding€that€ð ðThe€touchstone€of€the€constitutional€inquiry€under€theÐ Ð  ÐExcessive€Fines€Clause€is€the€principle€of€proportionality:€The€amount€of€the€forfeiture€must€bearÐ ¼  Ðsome€relationship€to€the€gravity€of€the€offense€it€is€designed€to€punish.ðð€€òòIdóó.€524€U.S.€at€334,€118€S.Ð ¨ø ÐCt.€at€2036.Ð ”ä ÐÌÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹Ôà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recently€commented€on€the€task€of€the€courts€toÐ l¼ Ðdetermine€whether€a€punishment€[in€that€case,€punitive€damages]€is€grossly€disproportional:€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àWe€have€recognized€that€the€relevant€constitutional€line€is€ð ðinherently€imprecise,ððÐ 0"€  ÐòòBajakajianóó,€524€U.S.€at€336,€118€S.€Ct.€at€2028,€rather€than€one€ð ðmarked€by€a€simpleÐ #l! Ðmathematical€formula,ðð€€òòGoreóó,€517€U.S.€at€575„580,€116€S.€Ct.€at€1589.€€But€inÐ $X" Ðdeciding€whether€that€line€has€been€crossed,€we€have€focused€on€the€same€generalÐ ô$D # Ðcriteria:€the€degree€of€the€defendantððs€reprehensibility€or€culpability,€the€relationshipÐ à%0!$ Ðbetween€the€penalty€and€the€harm€to€the€victim€caused€by€the€defendantððs€actions,Ð Ì&"% Ðand€the€sanctions€imposed€in€other€cases€for€comparable€misconduct.€€Moreover,€.Ð ¸'#& Ð.€.€we€have€engaged€in€an€independent€examination€of€the€relevant€criteria.€Ð¤(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌòòCooper€Indus.€Inc.€v.€Leatherman€Tool€Groupóó,€532€U.S.€424,€121€S.€Ct.€1678,€1684„85€(2001)€(someÐ |*Ì%) Ðcitations€omitted).Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹#ÔÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹ÔòòóóÐ h+¸&* ЇÔ#†X ¹XXX ¹¬•#ÔÓ  ÓIV.Ð ° ÐÓ –ÓÌà  àFor€guidance€in€how€to€apply€the€proportionality€tests€announced€in€òòStuartóó€and€òòBajakajianóó,Ð ˆØ Ðwe€look€first€to€how€the€courts€in€those€cases€applied€the€tests.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€inÐ tÄ ÐòòStuartóó€applied€its€test€to€the€forfeiture€of€Mr.€Stuartððs€truck׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€which€had€been€used€to€further€a€high„Ð `° Ðvolume€drug€transaction,€and€in€setting€out€its€analysis€òòóóprovided€additional€guidance:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àIn€considering€the€gravity€of€the€offense€under€the€first€factor,€several€generalÐ $ t Ðprinciples€guide€our€analysis:€(1)€intentional€conduct€is€more€serious€than€negligentÐ  ` Ðconduct;€(2)€completed€crimes€are€more€serious€than€attempted€crimes;€and€(3)Ð ü L  Ðviolent€crimes€are€more€serious€than€nonviolent€crimes.€€Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌòòStuart,€óó963€S.W.2d€at€36.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€analyzing€Mr.€Stuartððs€claims€under€these€factors,€the€Court€found€that€a€high„volume€drugÐ ˜è  Ðtransaction€is€unquestionably€a€grave€offense.€€It€further€found€that€the€transaction€was€bothÐ „Ô  Ðintentional€and€complete€and€that€although€drug€violations€are€not€òòper€seóó€violent€crimes,€violenceÐ pÀ Ðis€often€part€of€high€volume€drug€trafficking.€€òòIdóó.€€The€Court€provided€further€explanation€of€howÐ \¬ Ðto€apply€the€factors€in€the€test€announced€in€òòStuartóó:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àWhen€analyzing€the€culpability€of€the€claimant€under€the€second€factor,€there€are€alsoÐ  p Ðcertain€principles€that€guide€our€analysis:€(1)€the€claimant€acquitted€of€an€offense€isÐ  \ Ðregarded€as€the€least€culpable;€(2)€the€claimant€convicted€of€an€offense€is€the€mostÐ øH Ðculpable;€and€(3)€the€claimant€never€charged€with€an€offense€must€be€presumedÐ ä4 Ðinnocent.€€ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€applying€these€factors€to€Mr.€Stuartððs€conduct,€the€court€found€that€he€had€pleaded€guilty€Ð €Ð Ðand€was€convicted€for€the€underlying€drug€offenses,€thus€placing€him€in€the€ð ðmost€culpableððÐ l¼ Ðcategory.€€òòIdóó.€€Having€made€findings€regarding€the€gravity€of€the€offense€and€the€culpability€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðclaimant,€the€Court€explained€how€the€proportionality€consideration€was€to€be€factored€in:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àWhen€determining€the€harshness€of€the€penalty€imposed€under€the€first€and€secondÐ #l! Ðfactors€of€the€excessive€fines€analysis,€courts€should€consider€the€monetary€value€ofÐ $X" Ðthe€property€forfeited,€particularly€in€light€of€the€claimantððs€financial€resources.€€AÐ ô$D # Ðforfeiture€is€less€likely€to€be€excessive€when€the€claimant€has€the€financial€ability€toÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âreplace€the€property€without€undue€hardship.€€Conversely,€a€forfeited€vehicle€may€beÐ Ì&"% Ðworth€little,€but€undue€hardship€may€still€result€if€the€claimantððs€family€cannot€affordÐ ° Ðto€replace€it€and€has€no€other€means€of€transportation.ÐœìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌòòId.óó€€In€a€footnote,€the€Court€observed€that€failure€to€include€the€claimantððs€finances€in€theÐ tÄ Ðproportionality€analysis€will€ð ðgenerally€permit€forfeiture€of€property€from€persons€of€lesser€means,Ð `° Ðwhile€prohibiting€forfeiture€from€persons€of€greater€means.ðð€òòId.óó€n.12.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Court€found€that€the€evidence€suggested€that€Mr.€Stuart€had€been€spending€or€hidingÐ $ t Ðlarge€sums€of€money,€that€his€truck€was€moderately€expensive,€and€that€no€evidence€suggested€thatÐ  ` Ðforfeiture€of€the€truck€would€impose€an€extreme€hardship€on€Mr.€Stuart€or€his€family.€The€CourtÐ ü L  Ðstated,€ð ðwhile€the€record€does€not€reveal€the€truckððs€value€at€the€time€of€forfeiture,€it€is€undoubtedlyÐ è 8  Ðdwarfed€by€the€value€of€the€large€quantities€of€marijuana€Stuart€has€admitted€to€smuggling€into€theÐ Ô$  ÐUnited€States.ðð€òòId.óóÐ À  ÐÌà  àIn€applying€its€proportionality€test€to€the€facts€in€òòBajakajianóó,€in€which€the€defendant€hadÐ ˜è  Ðfailed€to€report€exported€currency€to€customs,€the€U.€S.€Supreme€Court€found€that€the€offenseÐ „Ô  Ðinvolved€òòóówas€punishable€by€a€maximum€of€six€months€imprisonment€and€a€fine€of€$5,000,€indicatingÐ pÀ Ða€minimal€level€of€culpability,€that€the€harm€caused€by€Mr.€Bajakajianððs€offense€was€also€minimal,€Ð \¬ Ðand€that€his€action€affected€only€one€party,€the€U.S.€Government,€and€in€a€minor€way.€òò€Bajakajian,Ð H˜ Ðóó524€U.S.€at€337„40,€118€S.€Ct.€at€2038„39.€€The€Court€concluded€that€the€forfeiture€of€all€the€moneyÐ 4„ Ðcarried€by€Mr.€Bajakajian,€$357,144.00,€would€be€grossly€disproportional€to€the€gravity€of€hisÐ  p Ðoffense€because€ð ð[i]t€is€larger€than€the€$5,000€fine€imposed€by€the€District€Court€by€many€orders€ofÐ  \ Ðmagnitude,€and€it€bears€no€articulable€correlation€to€any€injury€suffered€by€the€Government.ðð€€òòIdóó.€atÐ øH Ð339„40,€2039.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€U.S.€Supreme€Court€did€not€include€in€its€proportionality€test€any€consideration€of€theÐ ¼  Ðimpact€of€the€forfeiture€on€the€person€from€whom€the€property€is€taken,€but€noted€that€the€respondentÐ ¨ø Ðhad€not€argued€that€his€wealth€or€income€were€relevant€to€the€proportionality€determination.€€òòSee€idóó.,Ð ”ä Ð524€U.S.€at€340€n.15,€118€S.€Ct.€at€2039€n.15.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€the€only€Tennessee€appellate€court€opinion€since€òòStuartóó€and€òòBajakajianóó€to€deal€fully€withÐ X ¨ Ðthe€excessive€fines€analysis,€the€Tennessee€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€applied€that€analysis€to€a€fineÐ D!” Ðimposed€by€a€jury€under€a€statute€establishing€a€minimum€fine,€but€no€maximum€limit.€òòState€v.Ð 0"€  ÐTayloróó,€No.€M1999„2566„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€427651€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€26,€2001)€(òòperm.Ð #l! Ðapp.€grantedóó€Sept.€17,€2001).€In€that€case,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reiterated€the€United€StatesÐ $X" ÐSupreme€Courtððs€holding€that€the€Constitution€prohibits€fines€that€are€disproportionate€to€the€crimeÐ ô$D # Ðcommitted,€citing€òòBajakajianóó€and€òòSolem€v.€Helmóó,€463€U.S.€277,€284,€103€S.€Ct.€3001,€3006€(1983).€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€court€set€out€and€then€applied€the€òòSolemóó€analysis€which€required€consideration€of€(1)€the€gravityÐ Ì&"% Ðof€the€offense€and€the€harshness€of€the€penalty;€(2)€the€fines€imposed€on€other€criminals€in€the€sameÐ ¸'#& Ðjurisdiction;€and€(3)€sentences€imposed€for€commission€of€the€same€crime€in€other€jurisdictions.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòTayloróó,€2001€WL€427651,€at€*2.€€òòTayloróó€involved€a€fine€of€$27,500,€imposed€as€part€of€the€sentence€Ð )à$( Ðâ âupon€conviction€of€a€second€offense€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€òòId.óó€at€*1.€€The€courtÐ |*Ì%) Ðdetermined€that€the€fine€of€$27,500€was€inappropriate€in€relation€to€the€nature€and€gravity€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âoffense.׃%×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì ÐÌÓ  ÓV.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓU´Óà  àClearly,€our€consideration€of€whether€the€forfeiture€of€the€van€is€disproportional€to€theÐ L œ Ðconduct€requires€consideration€of€a€number€of€factors.€€We€must€consider€the€gravity€of€the€conductÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhich€the€forfeiture€serves€to€punish.€€Part€of€that€consideration€is€the€relative€seriousness€of€theÐ $ t Ðother€punishments€for€the€offense€and€of€punishments€for€similar€offenses.€€The€offense€that€is€theÐ  ` Ðbasis€for€forfeiture€of€Ms.€Ô_ÔHawksððsÔ_Ô€vehicle€is€driving€on€a€license€which€was€revoked€for€DUI,€inÐ ü L  Ðviolation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(a).€€The€Department€of€Safety,€in€an€administrativeÐ è 8  Ðhearing,€made€the€determination€she€had€committed€the€violation.׃&(×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€It€is€necessary,€however,€toÐ Ô$  Ðexamine€Ms.€Hawksððs€actual€conduct€and€culpability€as€part€of€the€proportionality€assessment.€€Ms.Ð À  ÐHawksððs€driver€license€had€indeed€been€revoked€as€a€consequence€of€her€conviction€of€DUI€in€MarchÐ ¬ü  Ðof€1996.€€When€considered€as€part€of€her€punishment€for€that€offense,€the€revocation,€by€statute€andÐ ˜è  Ðby€court€order,€was€for€one€year.€€By€the€time€she€was€stopped€and€charged€with€driving€on€a€revokedÐ „Ô  Ðlicense,€that€mandatory€revocation€time€had€expired;€she€had€served€her€punishment€for€the€originalÐ pÀ ÐDUI€conviction.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€legislature€has€determined€that€a€person€who€has€been€convicted€for€the€first€time€ofÐ 4„ Ðdriving€under€the€influence€should€not€be€allowed€to€drive€on€the€public€ways€of€this€state€for€oneÐ  p Ðyear€after€conviction.€€Whether€this€determination€is€based€on€goals€of€punishment,€deterrence,Ð  \ Ðpublic€safety,€or€a€combination€of€the€three,€those€goals€are€satisfied,€in€the€judgment€of€theÐ øH Ðlegislature,€after€that€year.€€A€person€who€meets€the€requirements€for€reissuance€of€a€license€mayÐ ä4 Ðagain€enjoy€driving€privileges€after€that€year,€an€indication€that€the€legislature€does€not€consider€suchÐ Ð  Ðpersons€in€general€a€danger€to€the€public€safety.€€Similarly,€the€General€Assembly€has€seen€fit€toÐ ¼  Ðpermit€persons€convicted€of€DUI€to€drive€in€certain€situations€under€restricted€licenses.€€òòSee€óóTenn.Ð ¨ø ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(d).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€forfeiture€herein€was€not€based€on€any€claim€that€Ms.€Hawks€violated€the€one€yearÐ l¼ Ðmandatory€revocation€restriction€on€her€driving€that€was€part€of€her€punishment€for€DUI.€€If€that€wereÐ X ¨ Ðthe€situation,€we€would€consider€her€conduct€to€constitute€a€more€serious€or€grave€offense€becauseÐ D!” Ðit€would€indicate€a€more€serious€disregard€for€the€consequences€of€her€earlier€conviction.€€However,Ð 0"€  Ðshe€was,€at€the€time€of€the€seizure€of€her€van,€eligible€for€reissuance€of€a€license€upon€complianceÐ ° Ðwith€certain€requirements.€€She€was€reissued€a€license€two€months€later.€€Thus,€at€the€time€of€theÐ œì Ðseizure,€she€could€have€been€licensed€but€had€not€taken€the€necessary€steps.€€That€conduct€was€aÐ ˆØ Ðviolation€of€the€law€and€subjected€her€to€prosecution€and€potential€criminal€punishment,€proceedingsÐ tÄ Ðoutside€the€case€before€us.€€Whether€that€conduct€justified€the€loss€of€her€vehicle€is€the€question€here.Ð `° ÐÌà  àBecause€Ms.€Hawks€was€eligible€for€a€new€license,€but€had€not€obtained€one,€the€gravity€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€failure€to€do€so€is€relevant€to€the€proportionality€inquiry.€€The€record€does€not€include,€and€theÐ $ t ÐDepartment€has€not€pointed€out,€any€requirements€for€issuance€of€a€new€license€to€a€person€whoseÐ  ` Ðperiod€of€mandatory€revocation€for€conviction€of€DUI€has€expired€that€are€different€from€theÐ ü L  Ðrequirements€for€a€new€license€for€anyone€else€who€has€become€eligible€after€revocation.׃(×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€otherÐ è 8  Ðwords,€there€are€no€special€requirements€for€a€new€license€directed€solely€to€the€person€whose€licenseÐ Ô$  Ðwas€revoked€because€of€one€DUI€conviction.׃(×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€the€Department€is€under€a€directive€not€toÐ À  Ðð ðissue€a€new€license€unless€and€until€it€is€satisfied€after€investigation€of€the€character,€habits€andÐ ¬ü  Ðdriving€ability€of€such€person€that€it€will€be€safe€to€grant€the€privilege€of€driving€a€motor€vehicle€onÐ ˜è  Ðthe€public€highways,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„502(f)(3)€(formerly€ðð€55„50„502(e)(3)),€theÐ „Ô  ÐDepartment€has€not€provided€us€with€any€information€regarding€the€criteria€it€applies€in€suchÐ pÀ Ðsituations€or€argued€that€those€criteria€are€more€stringent€for€persons€whose€license€was€originallyÐ \¬ Ðrevoked€for€one€DUI€conviction.€€Ms.€Hawks€passed€the€investigation€by€the€Department€two€monthsÐ H˜ Ðafter€the€seizure€of€her€vehicle,€and€the€Department€has€presented€no€evidence€or€argument€that€sheÐ 4„ Ðwould€not€have€passed€the€investigation€before€the€seizure.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àTherefore,€we€are€unable€to€discern€any€public€policy€determination€that€more€stringentÐ øH Ðrequirements€are€necessary€for€reissuance€of€a€license€to€a€person€who€has€completed€one€year€ofÐ ä4 Ðmandatory€revocation€because€of€one€DUI€conviction€than€for€reissuance€to€others€whose€licensesÐ Ð  Ðhave€been€revoked€for€other€convictions.€€Accordingly,€we€discern€no€basis€for€deciding€that€failureÐ ¼  Ðto€take€the€steps€necessary€to€obtain€a€new€license€is€a€more€serious€offense€for€someone€in€Ms.Ð ¨ø ÐHawksððs€situation€than€for€others€who€are€found€to€have€driven€while€their€license€was€in€a€revokedÐ ”ä Ðstatus.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€arguing€the€gravity€of€the€offense€committed€by€Ms.€Hawks€in€failing€to€have€a€newÐ X ¨ Ðlicense€issued€before€driving,€the€Department€relies€heavily€on€the€importance€of€compliance€withÐ D!” Ðthe€Stateððs€financial€responsibility€law€as€a€prerequisite€to€issuance€of€a€new€license€afterÐ 0"€  Ðrevocation.׃'×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€The€relevant€statutes,€however,€do€not€support€a€conclusion€that€such€conduct€afterÐ ° Ðexpiration€of€the€mandatory€revocation€period€is€more€serious€when€the€license€was€originallyÐ œì Ðrevoked€for€a€DUI€conviction.€€A€person€whose€license€has€been€revoked€because€of€a€ð ðconvictionððÐ ˆØ Ðmust€provide€proof€of€the€requisite€financial€responsibility,׃" ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€maintain€that€responsibility€forÐ tÄ Ðthree€years,€in€addition€to€paying€a€€restoration€fee€and€passing€the€driver€license€examination€asÐ `° Ðconditions€to€restoration€of€a€license.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„12„114(c).€€However,€a€convictionÐ L œ Ðwhich€triggers€these€requirements€for€restoration€of€driving€privileges€is€not€limited€to€driving€underÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€influence.€€Instead,€any€suspension€or€revocation€by€the€commissioner,€under€any€law€of€this€stateÐ $ t Ðauthorizing€such€suspension€or€revocation€by€reason€of€a€conviction,€is€included,€as€well€as€failureÐ  ` Ðto€satisfy€a€citation,€refusal€to€submit€to€a€drug€or€alcohol€test,€and€forfeiture€of€security€forÐ ü L  Ðappearance€in€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„12„113€and€„114.€€€In€any€event,€the€Department€has€notÐ è 8  Ðshown€that€Ms.€Hawks€was€not€in€compliance€with€the€financial€responsibility€requirements€at€theÐ Ô$  Ðtime€she€was€stopped,€and€the€Department€found€she€was€in€compliance€when€it€reissued€her€licenseÐ À  Ðtwo€months€later.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€the€analysis€of€the€gravity€of€the€offense,€the€other€penalties€authorized€for€the€offenseÐ „Ô  Ðcommitted€are€relevant€and€should€be€considered.òò€€Ô_ÔBajakajianÔ_Ôóó,€524€U.S.€at€339€n.14,€418€S.€Ct.€atÐ pÀ Ð2038€n.14.€€As€a€general€rule,€the€offenses€created€in€Chapter€50€of€Title€55€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ \¬ ÐAnnotated€are€Class€B€misdemeanors.€€ð ðAny€person€violating€any€of€the€provisions€of€this€chapterÐ H˜ Ðfor€which€punishment€has€not€been€hereinabove€provided€commits€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.ðð€€Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€55„50„603.€€The€statute€creating€the€offense€of€driving€when€that€privilege€has€beenÐ  p Ðrevoked€specifically€states€that€such€offense€is€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„Ð  \ Ð50„504(a)(1).×ƒÄ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€Class€B€misdemeanor€is€punishable€by€confinement€in€jail€for€up€to€six€monthsÐ øH Ðand/or€a€fine€of€up€to€$500.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111(e)(2).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€offense€of€driving€on€a€license€which€has€been€revoked€because€of€a€conviction€forÐ ¼  Ðvehicular€assault,€vehicular€homicide,€or€driving€while€intoxicated€is€subject€to€a€specific€penalty:Ð ¨ø Ðconfinement€of€not€less€than€two€days€nor€more€than€six€months€and€a€fine€of€up€to€$1,000.€€Tenn.Ð ”ä ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1).€€Thus,€the€two€offenses€can€be€punished€by€the€same€maximumÐ €Ð Ðincarceration,€and€the€primary€difference€is€the€mandatory€two„day€incarceration€when€the€licenseÐ ° Ðwas€originally€revoked€for€one€of€the€enumerated€offenses.€€A€higher€maximum€fine€is€also€available.€Ð œì ÐNeither€of€these€differences,€however,€removes€the€offense€from€general€categorization€as€a€mid„Ð ˆØ Ðrange€misdemeanor.€€òòóóIn€òòBajakajianóó,€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€found€that€the€fact€that€the€offenseÐ tÄ Ðinvolved€was€punishable€by€a€maximum€of€six€months€imprisonment€and€a€fine€of€$5,000€indicatedÐ `° Ða€minimal€level€of€culpability€as€a€factor€in€the€proportionality€analysis.€€òòSee€Bajakajianóó,€524€U.S.Ð L œ Ðat€338„39,€118€S.€Ct.€at€2038.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àEven€within€the€set€of€statutes€governing€driving€licenses,€the€legislature€has€determined€thatÐ  ` Ðother€offenses,€though€still€misdemeanors,€are€more€serious€than€the€one€committed€by€Ms.€Hawks.€Ð ü L  ÐFor€example,€it€is€a€Class€A€misdemeanor€to€operate€a€vehicle€in€violation€of€any€condition€imposedÐ è 8  Ðby€the€Department€in€a€conditional€license.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„331(f).€Similarly,€violationÐ Ô$  Ðof€various€provisions€of€the€Financial€Responsibility€Act€are€Class€A€misdemeanors.Ð À  ÐÌà  àWe€also€consider€relevant€whether€violation€of€other€driving€or€driver€license€related€offenses€Ð ˜è  Ðcan€result€in€forfeiture€of€the€offenderððs€vehicle.€€Ô‡X ¹XXX ¹ÔThe€statute€authorizing€forfeiture€of€Ms.€HawksððsÐ „Ô  Ðvehicle€applies€only€to€persons€who€operate€a€vehicle€at€a€time€when€their€licenses€are€in€revokedÐ pÀ Ðstatus,€having€initially€been€revoked€because€of€a€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€anÐ \¬ Ðintoxicant.€€It€does€not€authorize€forfeiture€of€vehicles€being€driven€by€persons€whose€licenses€areÐ H˜ Ðin€revoked€status€when€the€initial€revocation€was€for€any€other€reason,€including€conviction€ofÐ 4„ Ðvehicular€assault€or€vehicular€homicide,€both€felonies€and,€thus,€considered€graver€offenses.׃)×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€conviction€of€the€offense€of€DUI€for€the€first€time€does€not€carry€with€it€theÐ øH Ðpossibility€of€forfeiture€of€the€vehicle€involved.׃*Ü×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€First€offense€DUI€is€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€Tenn.Ð ä4 ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(m),€making€violation€subject€to€the€harshest€penalty€available€for€aÐ Ð  Ðmisdemeanor.€€It€is€also€a€poses€a€serious€threat€to€the€public€safety.€€Recognizing€this€threat,€theÐ ¼  ÐGeneral€Assembly€has€enacted€laws€designed€to€ð ðremove€from€the€highways,€prosecute€and€punishÐ ¨ø Ðthose€who€engage€in€the€dangerous€menace€of€driving€under€the€influence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€913Ð ”ä ÐS.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àFurther,€a€second€violation€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license€is€a€Class€A€misdemeanor;Ð X ¨ Ðhowever,€forfeiture€of€the€vehicle€involved€is€not€authorized€unless€the€original€revocation€was€dueÐ D!” Ðto€a€DUI€conviction.€€From€these€examples,€it€is€clear€that€driving€and€license€offenses€consideredÐ 0"€  Ðmore€serious€by€the€legislature€and€subject€to€harsher€criminal€penalties€do€not€carry€the€risk€ofÐ #l! Ðforfeiture€of€the€vehicle.Ð $X" Ðâ âà  àÔ#†X ¹XXX ¹(â#ÔÐ ô$D # Ðà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€has€analyzed€the€relative€gravity€of€the€offense€of€driving€onÐ ° Ðâ âa€revoked€license,€second€offense,€as€follows:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àDriving€on€a€revoked€or€suspended€license,€second€offense,€is€graded€by€ourÐ tÄ Ðlegislature€as€a€class€A€misdemeanor.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(a)(2)Ð `° Ð(1998).€€The€offense€is€neither€a€violent€offense€nor€an€offense€against€a€person.€Ð L œ ÐRather,€the€offense€reflects€the€legislatureððs€prerogative€to€sanction€a€penalty€againstÐ 8 ˆ Ðpersons€for€violating€a€previously€imposed€driving€restriction.€€The€legislature€hasÐ $ t Ðauthorized€a€fine€of€ð ðnot€less€than€three€thousand€dollarsðð€for€a€second€infraction€ofÐ  ` Ðthis€misdemeanor€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(a)(2).€€The€disparityÐ ü L  Ðbetween€the€nature€of€the€offense€and€the€fine€imposed,€at€a€minimum,€suggests€aÐ è 8  Ðlack€of€proportionality€in€the€sentence.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòTayloróó,€No.€2001€WL€427651,€at€*€2€(footnotes€omitted).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€court€also€compared€the€fine€imposed€for€the€offense€of€driving€on€a€revoked€orÐ „Ô  Ðsuspended€license,€second€offense,€with€fines€imposed€for€the€commission€of€other€crimes€in€theÐ pÀ ÐState€of€Tennessee.€€After€discussing€the€fines€generally€available€for€class€A€misdemeanors,€for€aÐ \¬ Ðfirst€offense€of€òòóódriving€on€a€revoked€license,€and€the€graduated€fines€for€the€first€and€subsequentÐ H˜ Ðviolations€of€the€more€serious€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence,€the€court€concluded€that€ð ðAÐ 4„ Ðfine€imposed€for€a€second€offense€driving€on€revoked,€a€class€A€misdemeanor,€therefore,€has€theÐ  p Ðpotential,€as€no€statutory€maximum€limit€to€the€fine€exists,€to€surpass€fines€imposed€for€similar€butÐ  \ Ðmore€serious€offenses,ðð€including€serious€felonies.€€òòIdóó.€at€*3.Ð øH ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€this€analysis.€€Applying€it€to€the€facts€of€the€case€before€us,€which€involvesÐ Ð  Ða€first,€rather€than€second€violation,€and€one€that€occurred€while€the€driver€was€eligible€for€a€newÐ ¼  Ðlicense,€we€conclude€that€the€forfeiture€of€the€vehicle€herein€was€grossly€disproportionate€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðgravity€of€the€conduct€which€was€the€basis€of€the€forfeiture.€€The€offense€was€a€midrangeÐ ”ä Ðmisdemeanor,€subject€to€a€maximum€fine€of€$1,000;€the€conduct€was€neither€violent€nor€dangerousÐ €Ð Ðto€the€public;€other€vehicle€and€licensing€related€offenses,€carrying€more€severe€penalties,€do€notÐ l¼ Ðsubject€offenders€to€the€risk€of€forfeiture€of€their€vehicles.€Ð X ¨ ÐòòóóÌà  àThe€Department€argues€that€the€General€Assembly€has€viewed€the€offense€of€driving€on€aÐ 0"€  Ðlicense€revoked€for€DUI€as€ð ðquite€severeðð€and€has,€in€the€past€decade,€€increased€the€potential€penaltyÐ #l! Ðfor€that€offense,€as€well€as€the€offense€of€driving€on€a€license€revoked€for€conviction€of€otherÐ $X" Ðspecified€vehicular€crimes.€€While€the€legislature€has,€as€set€out€above,€provided€separate€specificÐ ô$D # Ðcriminal€penalties€available€upon€conviction€for€these€offenses,€the€degree€of€enhanced€severity€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðpunishment,€as€compared€with€the€offense€of€driving€on€a€license€revoked€for€any€other€reason,€isÐ Ì&"% Ðminimal.€€There€is€no€indication€that€the€legislature€intended€to€remove€driving€on€a€license€revokedÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€a€DUI€conviction€from€its€classification€as€a€midrange€misdemeanor,€or€even€to€subject€it€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpotential€maximum€punishment€as€great€as€other€license€related€offenses.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€fact€that€the€General€Assembly€added€potential€forfeiture€of€the€vehicle€involved€as€aÐ ° Ðâ âpenalty€for€driving€on€a€license€revoked€for€conviction€of€specific€offenses€cannot€be€used€inÐ œì Ðanalyzing€the€gravity€of€the€offense.€€Obviously,€legislative€authority€making€the€property€subjectÐ ˆØ Ðto€forfeiture€is€necessary€to€provide€jurisdiction€to€the€forfeiting€agency.€€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€No.Ð tÄ Ð03C01„9703„CR„00105,€1998€WL€221052,€at€*5„6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€6,€1998)€(no€Tenn.€R.Ð `° ÐApp.€P.11€application€filed)€(the€terms€of€the€statute€must€manifest€the€legislatureððs€intent€toÐ L œ Ðauthorize€forfeiture).€€Unless€such€statutory€authority€is€present,€there€is€no€need€to€conduct€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðindividualized€excessive€fines€analysis.€€To€argue€that€the€legislatureððs€enactment€of€a€forfeitureÐ $ t Ðprovision€for€a€particular€offense€elevates€that€offense€to€a€gravely€serious€one€amounts€to€anÐ  ` Ðargument€that€the€forfeiture€cannot€be€excessive€because€the€legislature€authorized€it.€€Such€anÐ ü L  Ðargument€disregards€the€directives€of€both€the€United€States€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courts€andÐ è 8  Ðthe€effect€of€the€constitutional€prohibition€on€excessive€fines.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹Ôà  àLegislatures€have€extremely€broad€discretion€in€defining€criminal€offenses€and€in€setting€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpermissible€range€of€punishments€for€each€offense.€€òòSchall€v.€Martinóó,€467€U.S.€253,€268„69€n.18,€104Ð ˜è  ÐS.€Ct.€2403,€(1984);€òòSolem€v.€Helmóó,€463€U.S.€277,€290,€103€S.€Ct.€3001,€3009€(1983).€€However,€Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹/#ÔasÐ „Ô  Ðthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€noted€in€òòBajakajian,óó€an€authorization€of€forfeiture€ð ðcannot€overrideÐ pÀ Ðthe€constitutional€requirement€of€proportionality€review.ðð€€òòBajakajianóó,€524€U.S.€at€339€n.14,€€118Ð \¬ ÐS.€Ct.€at€2038€n.14.€€Thus,€it€is€left€to€the€courts€to€determine€whether€a€particular€forfeiture€violatesÐ H˜ Ðthe€constitution€under€the€individual€facts€of€that€case,€even€where€the€legislature€has€granted€generalÐ 4„ Ðauthority€for€such€forfeitures.€€We€note€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(h)€Ô‡X ¹XXX ¹Ômakes€no€distinctionÐ  p Ðbetween€persons€driving€while€still€subject€to€the€one€year€mandatory€revocation€part€of€theirÐ  \ Ðsentence€and€those€driving€when€they€are€eligible€for€a€new€license.€€€Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹8#ÔAs€we€stated€earlier,€disregardÐ øH Ðof€a€court€order€prohibiting€driving€and€disregard€of€the€mandatory€one„year€revocation€required€byÐ ä4 Ðstatute€as€part€of€the€criminal€sanctions€for€conviction€constitute,€in€our€opinion,€more€egregiousÐ Ð  Ðconduct.€€It€is€left€to€the€administrative€decision€makers€to€make€the€first€decision€as€to€whether€theÐ ¼  Ðparticular€conduct€warrants€the€harsh€consequence€of€forfeiture.€€It€is€the€role€of€the€courts€to€reviewÐ ¨ø Ðthat€decision€for€constitutionality.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€Department€also€argues€that€the€gravity€of€the€offense€involved€is€demonstrated€by€Ð l¼ Ðlegislation€dealing€with€intoxicated€drivers.€We€are€aware€of€and€share€the€General€AssemblyððsÐ X ¨ Ðconcern€over€the€tragedies€caused€by€persons€who€drive€while€under€the€influence€of€intoxicants,€andÐ D!” Ðwe€recognize€its€efforts€to€reduce€those€tragedies.€€Among€the€measures€enacted€to€punish€and€deterÐ 0"€  Ðdriving€under€the€influence€of€intoxicants€are€increased€criminal€penalties,€including€increasingÐ #l! Ðseverity€for€repeat€offenders.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€penalties€for€persons€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€inÐ à%0!$ Ðviolation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401,€include,€for€the€first€offense,€a€mandatory€fine€of€at€leastÐ Ì&"% Ðâ â$350.00€with€a€maximum€of€$1,500.00,€and€confinement€in€jail€for€not€less€than€48€hours€nor€moreÐ ¸'#& Ðthan€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1).€€A€first€convictionÐ ° Ðâ âdoes€not€authorize€forfeiture€of€the€vehicle.€€Only€upon€a€second€or€subsequent€violation€of€Tenn.Ð œì ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401,€or€similar€driving€under€the€influence€statute€in€another€state,€does€theÐ ˆØ Ðvehicle€used€in€the€violation€become€subject€to€seizure€and€forfeiture.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„Ð tÄ Ð403(k).€€The€General€Assembly€has€explained€its€reasons€for€authorizing€such€seizure€and€forfeiture:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àIt€is€the€specific€intent€that€a€forfeiture€action€under€this€section€shall€serve€a€remedialÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€not€a€punitive€purpose.€€The€purpose€of€the€forfeiture€of€a€vehicle€after€a€personððsÐ $ t Ðsecond€or€subsequent€DUI€violation€is€to€prevent€unscrupulous€or€incompetentÐ  ` Ðpersons€from€driving€on€Tennesseeððs€highways€while€under€the€influence€of€alcoholÐ ü L  Ðor€drugs.€€Driving€a€motor€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€or€drugsÐ è 8  Ðendangers€the€lives€of€innocent€people€who€are€exercising€the€same€privilege€ofÐ Ô$  Ðriding€on€the€stateððs€highways.€€There€is€a€reasonable€connection€between€theÐ À  Ðremedial€purpose€of€this€section,€ensuring€safe€roads,€and€the€forfeiture€of€a€motorÐ ¬ü  Ðvehicle.€€While€this€section€may€serve€as€a€deterrent€to€the€conduct€of€driving€a€motorÐ ˜è  Ðvehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€or€drugs,€it€is€nonetheless€intended€asÐ „Ô  Ða€remedial€measure.€€Moreover,€the€statute€serves€to€remove€a€dangerous€instrumentÐ pÀ Ðfrom€the€hands€of€individuals€who€have€demonstrated€a€pattern€of€driving€a€motorÐ \¬ Ðvehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€or€drugs.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(k)(3).€Ð  p ÐÌà  àHowever,€Ms.€Hawksððs€vehicle€was€not€seized€from€her€and€forfeited€because€she€wasÐ øH Ðdriving€under€the€influence€of€intoxicants.€€Ms.€Hawks€was€not€driving€under€the€influence,€and€theÐ ä4 Ðforfeiture€is€not€based€on€such€allegation.€€She€was€not€a€repeat€offender€and,€thus,€not€in€the€classÐ Ð  Ðof€ð ðunscrupulous€or€incompetentðð€persons€the€above€forfeiture€statute€was€designed€to€protectÐ ¼  Ðagainst.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€have€directed€us€toÐ €Ð Ðconsider€the€culpability€and€conduct€of€the€offender€and€the€reprehensibility€of€that€conduct.€€Ms.Ð l¼ ÐHawksððs€testimony€at€the€administrative€hearing€establishes€that€she€knew€she€was€driving€withoutÐ X ¨ Ða€valid€license€and€that€her€license€had€been€revoked€because€of€her€DUI€conviction.Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àI€knew€my€license€were€revoked.€€The€year€was€up,€but€I€just€hadnððt€had€the€moneyÐ #l! Ðto€get€them€back.€€And€at€that€time€I€had€been€living€in€the€projects€for€a€few€monthsÐ $X" Ðand€was€really€trying€my€best€to€get€out€of€the€projects.€€And€I€got€a€job€offer€makingÐ ô$D # Ðreally€good€money€.€.€.€,€and€I€knew€I€didnððt€have€any€license€when€I€started€drivingÐ à%0!$ Ðout€there.€€But€I€thought,€well,€you€know,€this€is€my€ticket€to€get€out€of€the€projects,Ð Ì&"% Ðget€my€license€back,€move€to€a€better€neighborhood,€a€decent€apartment€for€me€andÐ ¸'#& Ðmy€children.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  Їà  àJust€as€we€considered€the€fact€that€Ms.€Hawks€was€statutorily€eligible€for€reissuance€of€herÐ ° Ðlicense€at€the€time€of€her€offense€as€lessening€the€gravity€of€the€offense,€we€also€consider€that€factÐ œì Ðrelevant€in€assessing€her€culpability,€as€did€the€trial€court.€€She€admittedly€drove€at€a€time€when€herÐ ˆØ Ðlicense€was€still€in€a€revoked€status,€but€she€did€not€violate€the€one€year€prohibition.€€She€is,Ð tÄ Ðtherefore,€most€culpable€of€failing€to€comply€with€the€requirements€for€obtaining€a€new€license.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`° ÐThe€record€before€us€does€not€allow€us€to€conduct€the€culpability€assessment€using€all€the€factors€setÐ L œ Ðout€in€òòStuart€óóbecause€the€record€does€not€contain€any€information€regarding€Ms.€Hawksððs€criminalÐ 8 ˆ Ðprosecution.׃!ì×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€However,€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€she€was€involved€in€any€other€criminalÐ $ t Ðactivity.€€She€was€not€using€the€vehicle€to€further€an€illegal€money„making€enterprise.€€She€was€notÐ  ` Ðfound€to€have€violated€the€one„year€restriction€imposed€on€her€driving€as€a€result€of€her€priorÐ ü L  Ðmisdemeanor€conviction.€€She€was€not€operating€the€vehicle€while€under€the€influence€of€intoxicants.€Ð è 8  ÐTaken€as€a€whole,€her€conduct€is€not€particularly€reprehensible€when€compared€with€other€violationsÐ Ô$  Ðof€the€law.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà@‹‹)ìàV.ˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€guidance€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€inòò€Bajakajianóó,€we€find€that€Ms.Ð pÀ ÐHawksððs€offense€was€primarily€failing€to€take€the€steps€necessary€to€have€her€license€reissued.€€JustÐ \¬ Ðas€Mr.€Bajakajian€would€have€been€lawfully€permitted€to€transport€the€currency€in€his€possession€hadÐ H˜ Ðhe€reported€it,€Ms.€Hawks€would€have€been€lawfully€permitted€to€drive€had€she€applied€for€andÐ 4„ Ðreceived€her€license€before€she€recommenced€driving.€€She€was€reissued€her€license€shortly€after€theÐ  p Ðoffense€triggering€the€forfeiture.€€We€find€no€relationship€between€this€offense€and€any€other€criminalÐ  \ Ðactivity.€€The€maximum€criminal€penalty€that€could€have€been€imposed€for€the€offense€was€sixÐ øH Ðmonths€confinement€and€$1000€fine.€€The€òòBajakajian€óócourt€found€that€a€potential€maximum€penaltyÐ ä4 Ðof€six€months€imprisonment€and€a€fine€of€$5000€confirmed€a€minimal€level€of€culpability.€òò€Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔBajakajianÔ_Ôóó,€524€U.S.€at€338„39,€118€S.€Ct.€at€2038.Ð ¼  ÐÐ ¨ø Ðà  àThe€Court€in€òòBajakajianóó€also€found€that€minimal€harm€was€caused.€€The€only€party€affectedÐ ° Ðby€his€conduct€was€the€government,€which€the€Court€found€only€would€have€suffered€deprivationÐ œì Ðof€information€that€money€was€leaving€the€country.€òò€Id.óó€524€U.S.€at€339,€118€S.€Ct.€at€2039.€€In€Ms.Ð ˆØ ÐHawksððs€case,€the€only€party€harmed€was€the€Department,€which€was€deprived€of€its€ability€toÐ tÄ Ðinvestigate€her€fitness€for€a€license€and€of€its€reinstatement€fees,€albeit€only€for€a€few€months.€€€Ð `° ÐFinally,€the€Supreme€Court€found€that€the€$357,154€forfeiture€in€òòBajakajianóó€bore€no€articulableÐ L œ Ðcorrelation€to€any€injury€suffered€by€the€government€and€that€it€exceeded€the€maximum€potential€fineÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðby€many€orders€of€magnitude.ðð€€òòId.óó€524€U.S.€at€340,€118€S.€Ct.€at€2039.€€We€are€unable€to€draw€theÐ $ t Ðsame€conclusions€in€this€case,€primarily€because€we€are€unaware€of€the€value€of€the€forfeited€van,Ð  ` Ðbut€it€is€unlikely€that€the€vanððs€monetary€value€exceeded€the€maximum€fine€of€$1000€by€many€ordersÐ ü L  Ðof€magnitude.€€However,€the€exact€conclusion€as€that€reached€by€the€òòBajakajian€óócourt€is€notÐ è 8  Ðnecessary.€€We€find€no€correlation€between€the€forfeiture€of€the€van€and€any€injury€sustained€by€theÐ Ô$  ÐDepartment€or€by€the€police€department€which€seized€it.Ð À  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€our€conclusions€regarding€the€relative€gravity€of€the€offense€which€is€the€basisÐ ˜è  Ðfor€the€forfeiture€and€the€culpability€of€Ms.€Hawks,€we€are€convinced€that€in€view€of€all€the€facts€inÐ „Ô  Ðthis€case,€the€forfeiture€of€the€van€is€an€excessive€fine€and,€therefore,€prohibited€by€the€ConstitutionsÐ pÀ Ðof€the€United€States€and€of€Tennessee.׃+×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€trial€court.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Michael€C.€Greene,€CommissionerÐ 4„ Ðof€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety.Ð  p ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ ¼  Ð