would be considered an “excessive” fine. Although defendant was not convicted, he has been deprived of the value of his property in excess of the value of the care because of the effort of the government to convict him of criminal offenses. Thus, the question becomes whether the forfeiture in excess of $2,700 constitutes “punishment” under section 16 in light of the fact that defendant was ultimately acquitted of the criminal charges. The relevant portion of section 16 provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed.” Its purpose is self evident. A criminal defendant should not be punished beyond what is just. See, e.g., State v. Ross, 55 Or 450, 474, 480, 104 P 596, 106 P 1022 (1910), appeal dismissed 227 US 150, 33 S Ct 220, 57 L Ed 458 (1913) (<HOLDING>). My review of Oregon appellate case law
holding a fine excessive because it was greater than defendant could pay in a lifetime holding that in 1998 the law was clearly established that excessive duration of a police dog bite and improper encouragement of a continuation of the attack by officers could constitute excessive force holding in context of case involving racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act violations that lower court is required to impose maximum fine amount that would not be excessive under eighth amendment holding defendant convicted under  841b1a may receive lifetime term of supervised release holding the eighth amendment succinctly prohibits excessive sanctions it provides excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted 