search warrant. Defendant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the legality of the search of 40 Moon Hill Road is therefore denied. II. The Markts also argue that this suit is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 362, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 1104, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984), however, the Supreme Court specifically held that a civil forfeiture in rem proceeding is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court concluded that unless a forfeiture proceeding is “essentially criminal in character, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not applicable.” Id. See also One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and One Ring v. United States, 409 U.S. 232, 235, 93 S.Ct. 489, 492, 34 L.Ed.2d 438 (1972) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the First Circuit has
holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that forfeiture is not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment because it involves neither two criminal trials nor two criminal punishments holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding that in rem civil forfeitures under 21 usc  881a7 are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause