ÿWPC"1 L# 8UNC %‘ 0P—UFçw@-4m 0” 0D$h 0Jp AQº 0T  0^_ B½ 0hÚ 0rB 0|´ 0†0 0¶ 1uF 0d» Æ 0Då 0@) 0Di D/­ BÜ D3ù U>,U6jB) DCÉ AM U*YJƒûÍÉÈ‘ë—ð‚1rA£½äe¡"™$KŸ%çê'v~Ñ)vÓO+˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(( ××  ×€he€was€not€successful,€and€both€the€ChanceryÏCourt€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€upheld€the€forfeiture.ÌÌà àà àWe€granted€Stuartððs€application€for€review€under€RuleÏ11,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.,€in€order€to€address€the€following€issues€ofÏconstitutional€significance:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à1.€€Whether€Tennesseeððs€forfeitureÏstatutes€impose€ð ðpunishmentðð€within€theÏmeaning€of€the€double€jeopardy€clauses€of€theÏUnited€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions,Ïsuch€that€forfeiture€cannot€follow€aÍconviction€for€the€offenses€involving€theÏforfeited€property.× ƒ? ××  ×ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à2.€€Whether€the€forfeiture€here€imposedÏconstitutes€an€ð ðexcessive€fineðð€as€prohibitedÏby€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€16€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà àà àBecause€we€find€that€the€Tennessee€legislature€clearlyÏintended€that€forfeiture€be€a€civil,€òòin€remóó€proceeding,€we€holdÏthat€forfeiture€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„201€òòet€seq.óó€does€notÏimpose€ð ðpunishmentðð€for€the€purposes€of€the€double€jeopardyÏclauses€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.€Ô€8¼ÔÏÔ€8XÔFurther,€we€hold€that€the€forfeiture€of€Stuartððs€property€did€notÍviolate€the€excessive€fines€clauses€of€the€Tennessee€and€UnitedÏStates€Constitutions.€€€ÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àà àFrom€June€1987€to€March€1993,€Stuart€and€severalÏaccomplices€were€trafficking€in€large€quantities€of€marijuana.€ÏStuart€was€indicted€in€April€1993€for€his€role€in€this€conspiracy.€ÏOn€June€15,€1994,€he€pleaded€guilty€to€three€felony€offenses:€Ïconspiracy€to€deliver€over€70€pounds€of€marijuana,× ƒ@ ××  ×€conspiracy€toÏdeliver€over€700€pounds€of€marijuana,× ƒA ××  ×€and€delivery€of€over€70Ïpounds€of€marijuana.× ƒB ××  ×€€The€third€offense€was€based€upon€a€MarchÏ1993€delivery€of€approximately€140€pounds€of€marijuana.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€course€of€the€investigation,€law€enforcementÏofficers€conducted€numerous€searches€of€various€homes€andÍproperties,€including€some€owned€by€Stuart.€€The€searches,Ïconducted€from€September€1992€to€June€1993,€resulted€in€theÏseizure€of€vehicles,€other€personal€property,€and€over€$840,000€inÏUnited€States€currency.€€The€currency€claimed€by€Stuart€wasÏdiscovered€in€various€locations:€€on€Stuartððs€person,€in€hisÏtruck,€in€various€hiding€places€inside€his€home,€within€a€hiddenÏcompartment€in€the€shed€behind€his€girlfriendððs€house,€and€buriedÏin€a€North€Carolina€cemetery,€next€to€the€graves€of€relatives.ÌÌà àà àPursuant€to€the€administrative€procedures€in€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€53„11„201€(Supp.€1992),€the€State€initiated€proceedings€inÏthe€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety€for€the€forfeiture€of€theÏproperty€seized.€€Stuart€did€not€present€any€evidence€during€theseÏproceedings.€€In€the€initial€order€filed€December€22,€1993,€theÏadministrative€law€judge€made€the€following€findings:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àà à[I]t€is€concluded€that€all€ofÏthe€money€claimed€by€Page€Stuart,Ïalong€with€the€sports€cards× ƒC ××  ×€claimedÏby€him,€were€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€drug€proceeds,€orÏpurchased€with€drug€proceeds,€orÏpurchased€with€money€so€commingledÏwith€drug€proceeds€as€to€make€it€forÍall€intents€and€purposes€one€and€theÏsame€and€to€render€it€all€subject€toÏforfeiture€under€the€law,€absentÏcredible€rebuttal€evidence,€whichÏwas€not€forthcoming.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà àà à.€.€.€€€€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àFinally,€it€is€concluded€thatÏthe€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏpresented€in€this€case€is€that€theÏ1993€GMC€truck€at€issue€was€used€toÏfacilitate€the€March,€1993,Ïtransaction€involving€the€sale€ofÏ140„142€pounds€of€marijuana.€.€.€.ÏThe€use€of€the€truck€to€go€to€SanÏDiego€to€set€up€the€drug€deal€thatÏled€to€over€140€pounds€of€marijuanaÏbeing€taken€to€Tennessee€clearlyÏð ðfacilitatedðð€this€transaction€orÏsale.ÓÓÌÌà àà àThe€administrative€law€judge€also€found€that€Stuart€madeÏa€lump€sum€payment€of€$20,000€for€the€1993€GMC€truck€and€receivedÏa€rebate€of€$2,139.37.€€With€respect€to€Stuartððs€yearly€legitimateÏincome,€evidence€showed€that€he€earned€$31,568.07€in€gross€wagesÏin€1988;€$27,372€in€1989;€$25,800€in€1990;€$25,930€in€1991;€$5,943Ïin€wages€and€pension€income€in€1992;€and€$2,640€in€pension€incomeÏin€1993.€€In€addition,€he€withdrew€$11,000€from€his€credit€unionÏaccount€in€1991€and€$52,858.95€in€1992.€€Yet,€his€documentedÏexpenses,€including€the€seized€currency€for€which€he€filed€claims,Íwere€$789,975.09€in€1992€and€$413,930€in€1993.€€These€expenses€Ïexceeded€his€1992€and€1993€legitimate€income€by€over€1.1€millionÏdollars.€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€final€order€dated€April€29,€1994,€theÏCommissioner€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety€adopted€theÏadministrative€law€judgeððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw.€€The€chancery€court€considered€Stuartððs€petition€for€reviewÏand€affirmed€the€order€of€the€Commissioner.€€The€Court€of€AppealsÏaffirmed€the€chancery€court€judgment.€€Because€the€constitutionalÏissues€in€this€case€are€solely€questions€of€law,€our€review€is€òòdeÏnovoóó.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558,€561€(Tenn.€1997).€€€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àà àThe€double€jeopardy€clause€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution,€applicable€to€the€states€through€theÏFourteenth€Amendment,€provides€that€no€person€shall€ð ðbe€subjectÏfor€the€same€offense€to€be€twice€put€in€jeopardy€œof›€life€or€limbÏ....ðð€€Article€1,€ðð€10€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€providesÏthat€ð ðno€person€shall,€for€the€same€offence,€be€twice€put€inÍjeopardy€of€life€or€limb.ðð€€As€we€have€stated€often€and€mostÏrecently€in€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373,€378€(Tenn.€1996),Ïthree€fundamental€principles€underlie€double€jeopardy:€Ï(1)protection€against€a€second€prosecution€after€an€acquittal;€Ï(2)€protection€against€a€second€prosecution€after€conviction;€and€Ï(3)€protection€against€multiple€punishments€for€the€same€offense.€ÏStuart€asserts€that€forfeiture€subsequent€to€convictionÏconstitutes€a€second€punishment€imposed€for€the€same€offense„„aÏviolation€of€the€third€double€jeopardy€protection€enunciated€inÏòòDentonóó.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Urseryóó,€œ518€U.S.›€œ267,›€116€S.€Ct.Ï2135,€2138,€135€L.€Ed.2d€549,€557€(1996),€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€held€that€civil€forfeiture€generally€does€notÏconstitute€punishment€for€the€purposes€of€the€federalÏconstitutionððs€double€jeopardy€clause.€€The€Court€further€foundÏthat€the€federal€forfeiture€provisions€at€issue€were€civil€ratherÏthan€criminal€in€nature,€thus,€not€punishment€for€double€jeopardyÏpurposes.€€òòId.óó€at€__,€œ116€S.Ct.€at€2149,›€œ135€L.€Ed.2d€at€571.›€€TheÏappellant€asks€this€Court€to€reject€the€reasoning€of€òòUrseryóó€and€toÍfind€forfeitures€under€the€Tennessee€forfeiture€statute€criminalÏin€nature.€€ÌÌà àà àOnce€it€is€determined€that€multiple€punishments€haveÏbeen€imposed€upon€a€defendant,€the€Tennessee€Constitution€doesÏindeed€provide€a€greater€measure€of€protection€against€doubleÏjeopardy€than€does€the€United€States€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòDentonóó,Ï938€S.W.2d€at€381„82.€€However,€in€addressing€the€initial€questionÏof€what€constitutes€punishment,€this€Court€has€previously€followedÏa€federal€standard.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Conleyóó,€639€S.W.2d€435,€436„37Ï(Tenn.€1982)€(revocation€of€driverððs€license€is€not€punishment);ÏòòMetropolitan€Govððt€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€v.€Milesóó,€524ÏS.W.2d€656,€660€(Tenn.€1975)€(imposition€of€fine€for€violation€ofÏcity€ordinance€is€punishment).€€Furthermore,€the€test€delineatedÏin€òòUrseryóó€is€consistent€with€the€standard€previously€utilized€byÏthis€Court:€€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà8 à[N]ot€every€deprivation€visited€uponÏone€who€violates€the€stateððs€laws€isÏto€be€considered€ð ðpunishmentðð€forÏpurposes€of€applying€the€doubleÏjeopardy€clause.€€Thus,€it€isÏrecognized€.€.€.€that€the€doubleÏjeopardy€clause€did€not€prevent€aÏsecond€action€that€is€ð ðremedial€inÏnatureðð€and€not€intended€to€have€theÍeffect€of€inflicting€ð ðpunishmentððÏupon€the€individual€in€order€toÏvindicate€public€justice.ÌÓÓÌòòConleyóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€436;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòMilesóó,€524€S.W.2d€at€660.€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€we€will€rely€on€the€two„part€òòUrseryóó€test€inÏorder€to€determine€whether€forfeiture€under€Tennessee€lawÏconstitutes€punishment€for€the€purpose€of€double€jeopardy.× ƒD ××  ×€€UnderÏthe€first€prong,€we€must€determine€whether€the€legislatureÏintended€forfeiture€proceedings€to€be€criminal€or€civil.€€UnderÏthe€second€prong,€we€must€consider€whether€ð ðthe€clearest€proofððÏdemonstrates€that,€despite€legislative€intent,€the€forfeitureÏproceedings€are€so€punitive€in€fact€that€they€cannot€beÏlegitimately€viewed€as€civil€in€nature.€€òòUrseryóó,€œ518€U.S.›€at€__,Ï116€S.€Ct.€at€2147,€€135€L.€Ed.2d€at€568„69.€€€ÌÌà àà àConsidering€the€first€prong€of€the€òòUrseryóó€test€in€theÏcontext€of€Tennesseeððs€forfeiture€statutes,€it€is€clear€that€theÍTennessee€legislature€intended€these€forfeiture€proceedings€to€beÏcivil€rather€than€criminal.€€Three€reasons€support€thisÏconclusion.€€First,€forfeiture€under€Tennessee€law€is€an€action€òòinÏremóó.€€This€Court€has€regarded€forfeiture€under€the€TennesseeÏstatutes€as€an€action€òòin€remóó€for€a€considerable€length€of€time.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòFuqua€v.€Armouróó,€543€S.W.2d€64,€68€(Tenn.€1976)€(ð ðA€forfeitureÏproceeding€such€as€this€is€an€action€òòin€remóó€and€jurisdiction€ofÏthe€Court€depends€upon€its€actual€or€constructive€custody€of€theÏproperty€being€forfeited,€ordinarily€acquired€by€virtue€of€itsÏprevious€seizure.ðð).€€Moreover,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„451(b)Ï(1991)€states€that€property€may€be€seized€ð ðupon€process€issued€byÏany€circuit€or€criminal€court€having€jurisdiction€òòover€theÏpropertyóó.ðð€€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€it€is€the€property€itselfÏwhich€is€targeted,€not€the€owner€of€the€property.€€In€contrast€toÏthe€òòin€personamóó€nature€of€criminal€actions,€òòin€remóó€actions€areÏtraditionally€viewed€as€civil€proceedings,€with€jurisdictionÏdependent€on€the€seizure€of€a€physical€object.€€òòUrseryóó,€œ518›€U.S.Ïat€__,€116€S.€Ct.€at€2147,€135€L.€Ed.2d€at€568€(quoting€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€One€Assortment€of€89€Firearmsóó,€465€U.S.€354,€363,€104€S.ÏCt.€1099,€1105,€79€L.€Ed.2d€361,€369€(1984)).€€ÌÌà àà àSecond,€the€procedures€delineated€in€the€relevantÏstatutes€support€the€conclusion€that€the€Tennessee€legislatureÏintended€forfeiture€proceedings€to€be€civil€rather€than€criminalÏactions.€€The€most€significant€procedural€indication€of€such€anÏœintent›€is€the€allocation€of€the€burden€of€proof.œ× ƒE ××  ×›€€The€State€has€aÏless€onerous€burden„„that€of€proving€only€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€that€the€property€is€subject€to€forfeiture.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€53„11„201(d)(2)€(Supp.€1992).€€This€is€to€beÏcontrasted€with€the€Stateððs€burden€in€criminal€proceedings„„proofÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÌÌà àà àThe€third€supporting€reason€is€the€explicit€language€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„403€(1991),€which€provides:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà8 àAny€penalty€imposed€for€violation€ofÏparts€3€and€4€of€this€chapter€orÏ[title€39,€chapter€17,€part€4]€is€òòinÏaddition€to,€not€in€lieu€ofóó,€anyÏcivil€or€administrative€penalty€orÏsanction€otherwise€authorized€byÏlaw.ÌÓÓÌ(emphasis€added).€€Admittedly,€part€4€of€chapter€11€is€titledÏð ðCriminal€Penalties€and€Enforcement,ðð€and€Tennesseeððs€forfeitureÏstatutes€are€found€in€parts€2€and€4€of€chapter€11.€€However,€theÏcriminal€penalties€to€which€this€title€refers€are€separate€andÏdistinct€from€forfeiture.€€Criminal€penalties€are€imposed€by€œpartÏ4›€for€various€criminal€conduct,€such€as€acquiring€prescriptionÏdrugs€by€fraud€or€dispensing€prescription€drugs€in€violation€ofÏpart€3,€ð ðRegulations€and€Registrations.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÏ53„11„401€and€„402€(1991).€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€53„11„403€Ïexplains€that€these€penalties€are€òòin€additionóó€to€administrativeÏpenalties€such€as€forfeiture.€€Thus,€the€legislatureððs€intent€toÏmake€forfeiture€proceedings€civil€is€abundantly€clear.ÌÌà àà àThe€second€prong€of€the€òòUrseryóó€test€requires€us€toÏdetermine€whether€Tennesseeððs€forfeiture€proceedings€are€soÏpunitive€in€form€and€effect€as€to€overcome€our€legislatureððsÏintent€and€render€the€proceedings€criminal.€€The€forfeitureÏproceedings€must€be€shown€by€the€ð ðclearest€proofðð€to€be€punitiveÏin€order€to€overcome€legislative€intent.€€òòUrseryóó,€œ518›€U.S.€at€__,Ï116€S.€Ct.€at€2148,€œ135€L.›€Ed.2d€at€569.€€No€such€proof€exists.€ÏWe€discern€no€substantive€difference€between€TennesseeððsÏforfeiture€statutes€and€the€federal€statutes€at€issue€in€òòUrseryóó.€ÏThus,€the€reasoning€with€respect€to€the€punitive€effect€of€theÏforfeiture€statutes€in€òòUrseryóó€is€fully€applicable€here.€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€all€forfeiture€statutes€no€doubt€have€certainÏpunitive€aspects,€they€also€serve€important€nonpunitive€goals.€ÏFirst,€requiring€the€forfeiture€of€property€used€to€commit€drugÏviolations€serves€the€remedial€goal€of€encouraging€property€ownersÏto€make€sure€the€property€is€not€used€for€illegal€purposes.€ÏSecond,€the€forfeiture€may€also€abate€a€nuisance.€€With€respect€toÏproceeds,€the€forfeiture€serves€the€nonpunitive€goal€of€ensuringÏthat€persons€do€not€profit€from€their€illegal€acts.€€œòòId.óó€at€__,Ï116€S.€Ct.€at€2148„49,€135€L.€Ed.2d€at€569„70.€€Finally,›€œwhile›Íforfeitures€may€fairly€be€said€to€serve€the€purpose€of€œdeterrence,Ïthis€fact€does€not€transform€forfeiture€into€a€criminal€penalty.€Ï›Indeed,€all€civil€penalties€have€some€deterrent€effect.€€If€aÏsanction€must€be€solely€remedial€to€avoid€violating€the€œdouble›Ïœjeopardy›€œclause,›€then€no€civil€penalties€would€be€beyond€the€scopeÏof€the€Clause.€€òòHudson€v.€United€œStatesóó,€__€U.S.€__,€118€S.€Ct.Ï488,€495,€139€L.€Ed.2d€450,€461€(1997).›ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€Supreme€Courtððs€two„part€test€in€òòUrseryóó,€then,Ïwe€conclude€that€forfeiture€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„201€òòetÏseq.óó€is€a€civil€òòin€remóó€proceeding€and€does€not€constituteÏpunishment€for€purposes€of€either€the€state€or€federal€doubleÏjeopardy€clause.€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àà àThe€second€issue€Stuart€raises€is€whether€the€forfeitureÏof€his€currency,€truck,€and€sports€cards€constitutes€an€excessiveÏfine,€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€StatesÏConstitutions.€€Article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€andÏthe€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€bothÍprovide€that€excessive€bail€ð ðshall€not€be€required,€nor€excessiveÏfines€imposed,€nor€cruel€and€unusual€punishments€inflicted.ðð€€ThisÏCourt€has€previously€construed€the€cruel€and€unusual€punishmentÏclause€of€Article€I,€ðð€16€to€be€coextensive€with€its€federalÏcounterpart.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€844€S.W.2d€601,€603€(Tenn.€1992);ÏòòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€188„89€(Tenn.€1991).€€Accordingly,Ïwe€will€construe€the€excessive€fines€clause€of€Article€I,€ðð€16€inÏthe€same€manner.€€Ìà àà àWhile€forfeiture€is€not€necessarily€a€criminal€actionÏfor€purposes€of€the€double€jeopardy€clause,€forfeiture€is,€atÏleast€in€part,€a€punitive€measure.€€As€a€result,€the€excessiveÏfines€clause€applies€even€to€civil€òòin€remóó€forfeitures€of€property.€ÏòòAustin€v.€United€Statesóó,€509€U.S.€602,€621„22,€113€S.€Ct.€2801,Ï2812,€125€L.€Ed.2d€488,€505„06€(1993).€€However,€neither€theÏòòAustinóó€Court€nor€any€Tennessee€court€has€established€a€test€forÏdetermining€what€constitutes€an€excessive€fine.€€Thus,€we€must€nowÏdefine€such€a€standard.€€ò òÌÌà àà àó óAs€a€threshold€matter,€we€find€that€the€proceeds€ofÏillegal€drug€transactions€are€not€subject€to€an€excessive€finesÏanalysis€under€òòAustinóó.€€The€forfeiture€of€such€proceeds€is€notÍpunitive€because€the€claimant€was€never€legally€entitled€to€them,Ïin€the€same€way€that€a€bank€robber€is€not€entitled€to€the€stolenÏmoney.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Tilleyóó,€18€F.3d€295,€300€(5th€Cir.),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€513€U.S.€1015€(1994).€€Thus,€forfeiture€of€drugÏproceeds€is€purely€remedial€in€nature.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Salinasóó,Ï65€F.3d€551,€554€(6th€Cir.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Coleóó,€906€P.2dÏ925,€934„36€(Wash.€1995).× ƒF ××  ×€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€regard,€òòAustinóó€is€partially€distinguishable€fromÏthe€instant€case€because€the€forfeited€properties€in€òòAustinóó,€aÏmobile€home€and€auto€body€shop,€were€used€in€furtherance€of€drugÏtransactions;€they€were€not€proceeds€of€drug€transactions.€ÏòòAustinóó,€509€U.S.€at€604„05,€113€S.€Ct.€at€2803,€125€L.€Ed.2d€atÏ494.€€In€contrast,€in€the€case€under€review€the€administrative€lawÏjudge€found€that€ÌÓÓœ›à8 àà8 àà8 àall€of€the€money€claimed€by€PageÏStuart,€along€with€the€sports€cardsÏclaimed€by€him,€were€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€drugÏproceeds,€or€purchased€with€drugÏproceeds,€or€purchased€with€money€soÏcommingled€with€drug€proceeds€as€toÍmake€it€for€all€intents€and€purposesÏone€and€the€same€and€to€render€itÏall€subject€to€forfeiture€.€.€.€.ÓÓÌÌThe€definition€of€ð ðproceedsðð€includes€not€only€cash€but€alsoÏproperty€secured€with€the€proceeds€of€illegal€activity.€€òòSalinasóó,Ï65€F.3d€at€554.€€Therefore,€the€excessive€fines€clauses€of€bothÏthe€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€do€not€apply€to€theÏforfeiture€of€Stuartððs€currency€and€sports€cards€because€theÏadministrative€law€judge€found€them€to€either€be€proceeds€orÏpurchased€with€proceeds.€€Consequently,€the€truck,€which€theÏadministrative€law€judge€found€to€have€been€used€to€facilitate€aÏdrug€transaction,€is€the€only€property€subject€to€an€excessiveÏfines€analysis.ÌÌò òà àà àó óConsidering€the€forfeiture€of€Stuartððs€truck€in€theÏcontext€of€excessive€fines,€jurisdictions€that€have€established€anÏexcessive€fines€test€generally€divide€into€two€categories:€€thoseÏadopting€the€instrumentality€test€proposed€by€Justice€Scalia€inÏòòAustinóó,œ× ƒG ××  ×›€and€those€adopting€a€multifactored€hybrid€of€theÍinstrumentality€and€proportionality€tests.× ƒH ××  ×€€Under€theÏinstrumentality€test,€the€issue€is€not€the€monetary€worth€of€theÏforfeited€property;€rather,€the€issue€is€how€closely€related€theÏproperty€is€to€the€underlying€offense.€€For€example,€a€set€ofÏscales€used€to€measure€contraband€is€forfeitable€whether€made€ofÏthe€purest€gold€or€the€basest€metal.€€òòAustinóó,€509€U.S.€at€627„28,Ï113€S.€Ct.€at€2815,€25€L.€Ed.2d€at€509€(Scalia,€J.,€concurring).€ÏA€proportionality€analysis,€which€stems€from€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Courtððs€approach€to€the€cruel€and€unusual€punishmentÏclause,€essentially€compares€the€value€of€the€forfeited€propertyÏwith€the€gravity€of€the€criminal€conduct.€€òòUnited€States€v.€11869ÏWestshore€Driveóó,€70€F.3d€923,€927€(6th€Cir.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ï__€U.S.€__,€117€œS.›€Ct.€57,€136€L.€Ed.2d€20€(1996).€€€€€ÌÌà àà àVarious€courts€have€expressed€concern€over€theÏdifficulty€in€applying€both€the€instrumentality€and€theÏproportionality€approaches.€€The€proportionality€approach€makesÍthe€excessive€fines€analysis€very€fact„specific,€thus€providingÏless€guidance€and€uniformity.€€òòSeeóó€òòWojnaróó,€684€So.2d€at€201Ï(Altenbernd,€J.,€concurring€and€dissenting).€€Yet,€proportionalityÏanalysis€is€an€effective€mechanism€for€restraining€the€State,Ïwhich€has€a€strong€pecuniary€incentive€to€confiscate€the€mostÏproperty„„and€the€most€valuable€property„„possible.€€òòSeeóó€òòThorpóó,Ï450€S.E.2d€at€419.ÌÌà àà àFurther,€relying€solely€on€the€instrumentality€test€mayÏnot€be€fully€consistent€with€the€reasoning€in€òòAustinóó.€€TheÏmajority€in€òòAustinóó€based€the€application€of€the€excessive€finesÏclause€on€the€ground€that€the€forfeiture€served,€at€least€in€part,Ïto€punish€the€owner.€€Because€the€property€owner€is€the€personÏpunished,€it€would€be€illogical€not€to€consider€the€ownerððsÏculpability€in€determining€whether€the€forfeiture€is€excessive.€ÏAdditionally,€ð ðthe€very€word€ððexcessiveðð€plainly€contemplates€someÏcomparison€of€the€fine€to€the€conduct€sought€to€be€punished€inÏorder€to€determine€if€the€fine€violates€the€Eighth€Amendment.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€at€418.€€€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€we€note€that€Tennesseeððs€forfeiture€statutesÏembrace€the€proportionality€approach.€€Under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„451(a)(4)(C)(Supp.€1997),€the€simple€possession€of€a€smallÏamount€of€drugs€or€drug€paraphernalia€cannot€trigger€a€forfeitureÏaction.€€Apparently,€the€legislature€has€determined€thatÏforfeiture€would€be€disproportionate€to€those€crimes.€€ÌÌà àà àTherefore,€we€conclude€that€any€analysis€under€theÏexcessive€fines€clause€must€include€a€proportionality€test.€ÏAlthough€the€multifactored€analysis€is€described€in€various€ways,Ïcourts€consistently€utilize€the€following€factors:€€€€€€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà8 à(1)€€the€harshness€of€the€penaltyÏcompared€with€the€gravity€of€theÏunderlying€offense;€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à(2)€€the€harshness€of€the€penaltyÏcompared€with€the€culpability€of€theÏclaimant;€andÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à(3)€€the€relationship€between€theÏproperty€and€the€offense,€includingÏwhether€use€of€the€property€was€(a)Ïimportant€to€the€success€of€theÏcrime,€(b)€deliberate€and€planned€orÏmerely€incidental€and€fortuitous,Ïand€(c)€extensive€in€terms€of€timeÏand€spatial€use.€ÓÓÌòòœE.g.óó,›€òò11869€Westshore€Driveóó,€70€F.3d€at€928;€òòUnited€States€v.€6625ÏZumirez€Driveóó,€845€F.€Supp.€725,€732€(C.D.€Cal.€1994).€€No€singleÏfactor€is€dispositive.€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àà àIn€considering€the€gravity€of€the€offense€under€theÏfirst€factor,€several€general€principles€guide€our€analysis:Ï(1)intentional€conduct€is€more€serious€than€negligent€conduct;€Ï(2)€completed€crimes€are€more€serious€than€attempted€crimes;€and€Ï(3)€violent€crimes€are€more€serious€than€nonviolent€crimes.€€òòId.óóÏat€733.€€Here,€the€administrative€law€judge€found€that€the€truckÏhad€been€used€to€further€a€high„volume€drug€transaction„„unquestionably€a€grave€offense.€€Further,€the€transaction€was€bothÏintentional€and€complete.€€Finally,€while€drug€violations€are€notÏòòper€seóó€violent€crimes,€it€is€worth€noting€that€violence€is€oftenÏpart€of€a€high„volume€drug€trafficking€enterprise.€ÌÌà àà àWhen€analyzing€the€culpability€of€the€claimant€under€theÏsecond€factor,€there€are€also€certain€principles€that€guide€ourÏanalysis:€€(1)€the€claimant€acquitted€of€an€offense€is€regarded€asÏthe€least€culpable;€€(2)€the€claimant€convicted€of€an€offense€isÏthe€most€culpable;€and€€(3)€the€claimant€never€charged€with€anÍoffense€must€be€presumed€innocent.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€€Here,€Stuart€wasÏconvicted€for€the€underlying€drug€offenses.€€In€fact,€he€pleadedÏguilty€to€three€felony€drug€offenses€and€did€not€at€any€timeÏcontest€the€evidence€against€him€during€the€forfeitureÏproceedings.€€Thus,€in€this€regard€Stuart€falls€into€the€ð ðmostÏculpableðð€category.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€determining€the€harshness€of€the€penalty€imposedÏunder€the€first€and€second€factors€of€the€excessive€finesÏanalysis,€courts€should€consider€the€monetary€value€of€theÏproperty€forfeited,€particularly€in€light€of€the€claimantððsÏfinancial€resources.€€A€forfeiture€is€less€likely€to€be€excessiveÏwhen€the€claimant€has€the€financial€ability€to€replace€theÏproperty€without€undue€hardship.€€Conversely,€a€forfeited€vehicleÏmay€be€worth€little,€but€undue€hardship€may€still€result€if€theÏclaimantððs€family€cannot€afford€to€replace€it€and€has€no€otherÏmeans€of€transportation.× ƒI ××  ×€€Finally,€the€intangible€value€of€theÏforfeited€property€should€be€considered.€€For€example,€realÍproperty,€especially€a€home,€has€a€higher€intangible€value€thanÏpersonal€property.€€òò6625€Zumirez€Driveóó,€845€F.€Supp.€at€734.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€instant€case,€Stuart€purchased€the€truck€in€1992Ïfor€approximately€$18,000.€€The€record€does€not€reveal€the€truckððsÏvalue€at€the€time€of€forfeiture.€€With€respect€to€financialÏresources,€the€administrative€law€judge€found€that€Stuartððs€yearlyÏlegitimate€income€varied€from€approximately€$26,000€to€$59,000Ïfrom€1988€to€1992.€€In€1993,€he€earned€only€$2,640€from€hisÏpension.€€Meanwhile,€evidence€suggests€that€he€was€spending€orÏhiding€hundreds€of€thousands€of€dollars€in€both€1992€and€1993.€ÏFurther,€no€evidence€suggests€that€forfeiture€of€the€truck€willÏimpose€an€extreme€hardship€on€Stuart€or€any€other€member€of€hisÏfamily.€€Based€on€the€foregoing,€we€cannot€say€that€theÏdeprivation€of€one€moderately€expensive€vehicle€is€a€particularlyÏharsh€penalty.€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àIn€sum,€because€the€offense€was€intentional,€complete,Ïpotentially€violent,€and€involved€a€major€conspiracy€to€sell€largeÏquantities€of€marijuana,€the€offense€is€serious.€€Furthermore,ÏStuart,€who€pleaded€guilty€to€the€underlying€offense,€isÏunquestionably€most€culpable.€€In€comparison,€the€penalty€is€notÍparticularly€harsh.€€This€conclusion€is€buttressed€by€the€factÏthat€Stuartððs€expenditures€exceeded€his€legitimate€income€byÏhundreds€of€thousands€of€dollars€in€the€two€years€preceding€hisÏarrest.€€And€while€the€record€does€not€reveal€the€truckððs€value€atÏthe€time€of€forfeiture,€it€is€undoubtedly€dwarfed€by€the€value€ofÏthe€large€quantities€of€marijuana€Stuart€has€admitted€to€smugglingÏinto€the€United€States.€ÌÌà àà àThe€third€factor€of€the€excessive€fines€analysis€is€theÏrelationship€between€the€property€and€the€offense.€€Under€thisÏfactor,€we€inquire€whether€the€property€was€important€to€theÏsuccess€of€the€criminal€activity.€€The€administrative€law€judgeÏfound€that€the€forfeited€truck€was€used€to€facilitate€a€Ïtransaction€involving€140€pounds€of€marijuana.€€Apparently,€theÏtruck€was€used€as€Stuartððs€transportation€from€Nashville,ÏTennessee,€to€San€Diego,€California,€to€arrange€the€transaction,Ïnot€to€actually€transport€the€marijuana.€€Thus,€the€importance€ofÏthe€truck€to€the€success€of€the€transaction€is€minimal,€in€thatÏany€vehicle€could€have€served€this€purpose.€€However,€the€use€ofÏthe€truck€was€clearly€deliberate€and€planned.€€As€to€the€extent€ofÏthe€use€of€the€truck,€there€is€proof€only€with€respect€to€the€oneÍtransaction€involving€140€pounds€of€marijuana.€€While€this€is€onlyÏa€single€event,€Stuart€drove€the€truck€all€the€way€from€NashvilleÏto€San€Diego€to€make€the€arrangements.€€Clearly,€a€cross„countryÏdrive€in€the€truck€is€extensive€both€in€terms€of€time€and€ð ðspatialÏuse.ððÌÌà àà àIn€conclusion,€the€factors€weigh€in€favor€of€allowingÏthe€forfeiture€of€the€1993€GMC€truck.€€While€the€importance€of€theÏtruck€to€the€success€of€Stuartððs€drug€transaction€may€be€minimal,Ïother€facts€strongly€indicate€that€the€forfeiture€of€the€truck€isÏnot€unconstitutionally€excessive.€€In€light€of€the€gravity€of€theÏoffense,€Stuartððs€culpability,€the€moderate€effect€of€theÏforfeiture€here€imposed,€and€the€deliberate€and€extensive€use€ofÏthe€truck,€the€forfeiture€does€not€violate€the€excessive€finesÏclause€of€either€the€Tennessee€or€United€States€Constitution.€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€and€for€the€reasons€herein€stated,€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxedÏagainst€the€appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JusticeÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€Holder,€œJJ.›Ì