The State of Ohio v. OMalley

Medina, Ohio criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant charged with DUI.



In this case, we are asked two separate questions about R.C.

4511.19(G)(1)(c)(v) and Ohio's criminal-forfeiture scheme for vehicles owned and

used by repeat drunk drivers. First, we are asked whether that scheme violates the

Equal Protection Clauses in the state and federal Constitutions by treating owners

and nonowners differently. Next, we are asked, more specifically, whether the

forfeiture of appellant James O'Malley's 2014 Chevrolet Silverado constituted an

excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. We find that there was no equal-protection violation and that, as

applied to O'Malley, the vehicle forfeiture mandated by R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(c)(v)

did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment because it was

not grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense.

Affirmed.