as our case law requires, pursuant to State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 22, 23,122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1. {7} Under Gomez, we first consider whether the state constitution has been held to provide greater protection under similar circumstances than the federal constitution. State v. Lynch, 2003-NMSC-020, ¶ 13, 134 N.M. 139, 74 P.3d 73. Although our Supreme Court has interpreted our double jeopardy clause more expansively than its federal counterpart in three situations, no case has applied an expansive interpretation to the acquittal aspect of double jeopardy, the circumstance presented by this case. Id. ¶ 15 (giving protection from greater charges for the same conduct after a conviction on lesser charges); see State v. Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, ¶¶ 17-18, 27,129 N.M. 63, 2 P.3d 264 (<HOLDING>); State v. Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶¶ 35-36,122
holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that unlike under the federal constitution a civil forfeiture is punishment under the new mexico double jeopardy clause holding that the idaho constitution provides no greater protection from double jeopardy than does the federal constitution holding double jeopardy clause applicable to civil penalties under the false claims act holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court