The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution bans federal, state, and local governments from imposing excessive fines in civil and administrative proceedings. Throughout Anglo-American history, ii excessive fines in civil and administration proceedings has been “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” as a safeguard to rein in the government’s power to obtain excess payments in cash or in kind as punishment for an offense. In United States. v. Bajakajian, the Court ruled that a fine was excessive and in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment if it was “grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.” More recently, the Court in Timbs v. Indiana held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, making federal law applicable to state and local governments. Timbs suggests that a new day has come to scrutinize the size of fines and forfeitures in determining whether the size of fines may be in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. While Bajakajian supports the proposition that the legislature is the initial branch of government that determines ranges of fines, it is incumbent that the legislature does not violate the Bill of Rights, which now includes the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Timbs embraces all-inclusive language that legislative enactments of fines that are “out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence” and that yield “fines [as] a source of revenue” must be scrutinized.
Translating the gravity of an offense into a monetary figure is not a simple task. By virtue of Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes, the legislature has enacted statutes that delegate to local governments and their Special Magistrates and Code Enforcement Boards the right to decide whether code violations exist, and if so to impose unlimited cumulatively aggregated per diem fines that become a lien on an owner’s real property. After Timbs, the size of fines should matter and must be based on the gravity of a violation and whether the violation has caused harm or damage to the neighborhood. Therefore, the legislature, the quasi-judicial body, and ultimately the courts need to consider size of fines without strictly relying on the deferential doctrine that removes from courts the ultimate decision-making power to determine whether the legislature’s political judgment is justified in applying substantial economic sanctions.
One size does not fit all violations, and without considering the gravity of a violation and the application of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, the harm and damage caused by a code violation needs to be considered rather than assumed in any fact intensive analysis to determine if fines violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Otherwise, if local governments attempt to fit every violation into a one size fits all category, the legislature and local governments’ Special Magistrates and Code Enforcement Boards will have free rein in deciding the size of a fine without regard to harm and damage and will permit local governments’ to impose economic sanctions from private citizens as a source of revenue to help finance local governments code enforcement departments in lieu of imposing state and local taxes as provided by law.
For too long, the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment has been one of the Bill of Rights least followed protections, even though it was enacted to curb “the government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind.” After Timbs, the legislature and local governments are obligated to follow this important decision so that excessive fines are not assessed. Until and if the legislature and ultimately the courts consider the impact of Timbs, it is now up to local governments to consider reductions of substantial aggregated fines. Some local governments have attempted to comply with the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment by reducing the aggregated and accumulated fines by as much as 85% to 90% as long as payment is made within a set time period and there has been compliance with code violations. This is an affirmative step toward compliance with the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment and Timbs.
While Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes allows local governments to reduce code enforcement fines and liens, it is not mandatory. It is time for the legislature and ultimately the courts to consider the impact of Timbs and consider curbing fines and liens to comply with the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. As legal scholars and the courts debate the impact of Timbs and its directive to the legislature, local governments, and the courts to scrutinize fines and liens so that there are limitations on the power of the government to impose excessive economic sanctions, the question as always is: how much is too much?