OREGON HIGH COURT OKS DOUBLE-JEOPARDY REVIEW

A Claimant Contends The Civil Forfeiture Of A House And An
Indictment Based On The Same Drug Case Were Unconstitutional

As Alex Trebek might say, it's double-jeopardy time -- for the Oregon
court system.

On Thursday, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed to review a double
jeopardy claim in a 1994 Portland case involving the civil forfeiture
of a house and an indictment based on the same marijuana arrest.

Double jeopardy, which means being punished twice for one crime, is
prohibited under both the U.S. Constitution and the Oregon
Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that civil forfeiture is not
punishment for purposes of considering a double-jeopardy claim. But
the Oregon Supreme Court never has reviewed the state civil forfeiture
statutes under the Oregon Constitution, according to lawyers familiar
with the issue.

Stephen Kanter, a professor at Northwestern School of Law of Lewis &
Clark College, said the Oregon Constitution's ban on double jeopardy
is broader than the U.S. Constitution's.

"There is some cause for thinking that Oregon might take a different
look," Kanter said.

The decision to review State vs. Selness comes one day after the
Oregon Court of Appeals ruled on a double-jeopardy claim involving a
Portland ordinance that allows police to exclude drug defendants from
certain neighborhoods before prosecution.

The court upheld the practice, overturning a lower court ruling that
the exclusion notice itself was punishment and that prosecution on top
of that would then be double jeopardy.

In another case, the Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to review a
Court of Appeals ruling that college students with divorced parents
can demand financial support for their education.

An Oregon law provides that divorced or separated parents may be
required to continue to pay support while a child aged 18 to 21
attends school.

In 1998, a Multnomah County judge declared the law unconstitutional,
saying it imposed a financial burden on unmarried parents that is not
imposed on married parents.

The judge said there was no rational basis for creating separate
classes of parents.

The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the decision in December, saying
the state has an interest in looking out for the child when the
parents may be blinded by the bitterness of their divorce.