Blanche v. 1995 PONTIAC GRAND PRIX

• Decision Date: 09 September 1999
• Docket Number: No. C4-97-2259.,C4-97-2259.
• Citation: 599 N.W.2d 161
• Parties: James BLANCHE, et al., Appellants, v. 1995 PONTIAC GRAND PRIX (VIN: 162WJ12M95F268403), Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

599 N.W.2d 161

James BLANCHE, et al., Appellants, v. 1995 PONTIAC GRAND PRIX (VIN: 162WJ12M95F268403), Respondent.

No. C4-97-2259.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

September 9, 1999.

Howard S. Carp, Howard L. Bolter, Borkon, Ramstead, Mariani & Letourneau, Ltd., Minneapolis, for appellants.

Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Kathryn M. Eilers, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, Patrick R. Rohland, Certified Student Attorney, St. Paul, for respondent.

Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

BLATZ, Chief Justice.

On April 10, 1996, police stopped the respondent vehicle, a 1995¹ Pontiac Grand Prix. A small plastic bag containing nine rocks of crack cocaine was found on the pavement next to the vehicle, leading police to believe the vehicle contained the drugs when it was stopped. The vehicle was seized under the administrative forfeiture statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.5314 (1998), which provides for the forfeiture of conveyance devices containing $100 or more of a controlled substance.² Appellants requested judicial determination of the forfeiture as set forth by statute. Minn.Stat. § 609.5314, subd. 3 (1998). After the hearing, the district court ordered forfeiture of the vehicle, rejecting appellants' contention that they were entitled to the innocent owner defense. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. We now reverse and remand.

The facts are essentially undisputed. At around 7:30 p.m. on April 10, 1996, an off-duty St. Paul police officer heard gunshots near the intersection of University Avenue and Dunlap Street in St. Paul. As the officer ran toward the scene, he observed three vehicles driving away. One of the vehicles, a 1995 Pontiac Grand Prix occupied by four males and driven by appellant Carlos Blanche, became ensnarled in traffic. The officer ran to the driver's side of the vehicle with his gun drawn, ordered Blanche to turn off the ignition, and instructed everyone in the car to raise their hands. The officer testified that as he stood behind the vehicle waiting for additional police assistance, the passengers fidgeted and did not comply with his order to keep their hands visible. He further testified that as he waited he had a clear view of the pavement near the vehicle's passenger door and saw no controlled substances on the ground.

When additional police arrived at the scene, the occupants were removed from the vehicle one at a time. After two occupants exited the passenger side of the vehicle, the police found a small plastic bag containing what was later determined to be nine rocks of crack cocaine on the pavement just outside the passenger door. No controlled substances were found in the respondent vehicle, and none of the occupants were charged with an offense relating to controlled substances. Vehicle ownership records indicated James Blanche, Carlos Blanche's father, was the registered owner of the vehicle.

The vehicle was seized pursuant to a statute providing for administrative forfeiture of "all conveyance devices containing controlled substances with a retail value of $100 or more if possession or sale of the controlled substance would be a felony under chapter 152." Minn.Stat. § 609.5314, subd. 1(a)(2) (1998). Appellants James and Carlos Blanche were given notice as required by the administrative forfeiture statute,³ and both appellants timely exercised their right to demand a judicial determination of the forfeiture by filing a civil complaint.

At the forfeiture hearing, appellants contended that their demand for judicial determination of the administrative forfeiture converted the administrative forfeiture into a judicial forfeiture, with all of its accompanying defenses. Appellants then argued that as they were not privy to and had no knowledge of the presence of crack cocaine in the vehicle, they were innocent owners whose property should not be forfeited. Appellants also asserted that because the crack cocaine was found outside the vehicle and no controlled substance offense charges were filed, the county was not entitled to the presumption of forfeitability accorded in administrative forfeitures. The state maintained that a plain reading of the forfeiture statute shows that appellants are not entitled to an innocent owner defense for forfeitures initiated as administrative forfeitures.

Rejecting appellants' claims, the district court found that Carlos Blanche was the vehicle's owner, that when the vehicle was stopped it contained the plastic bag which held crack cocaine with a retail value of $180.00, and that the vehicle was subject to forfeiture under the administrative forfeiture statute. The district court also found that "[i]t was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Carlos Blanche was privy to the fact that cocaine was in the Defendant automobile, or that possession of such cocaine occurred with Carlos Blanche's knowledge or consent." Blanche v. 1996 Pontiac Grand Prix, No. C4-97-5762 at 3 (4th Dist.Minn.1996). Finally, the district court ordered the vehicle to be forfeited.

The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that there was sufficient evidence for the district court to find that the crack cocaine was inside the vehicle when it was stopped. Blanche v. 1995 Pontiac Grand Prix, No. C4-97-2259, 1998 WL 405018 at *2 (Minn.App.1998). By focusing on the differences between forfeitures initiated as administrative forfeitures and those initiated as judicial procedures, the court of appeals also concluded that the innocent owner defense does not apply to administratively initiated forfeitures. Id.

I.

Appellants first argue that the district court erred in finding that their motor vehicle contained a controlled substance, and therefore the forfeiture was improperly initiated as an administrative forfeiture. A district court's findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. See Kornberg v. Kornberg, 542 N.W.2d 379, 386 (Minn.1996). However, we review de novo the district court's determination that the action was properly initiated as an administrative forfeiture, as this presents a question of law. See Bruggeman v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc., 591 N.W.2d 705, 708 (Minn.1999).

At the forfeiture hearing, a police officer testified that after he stopped the respondent vehicle, he stood behind the vehicle waiting for additional police assistance. From behind the vehicle he had a clear view of the pavement near the passenger door of the vehicle, and he testified that he did not see anything unusual laying on the ground. He testified further that no one passed near the vehicle while it was stopped. After two of the vehicle's occupants were removed from the passenger side of the vehicle, police found a small plastic bag containing crack cocaine on the ground next to the vehicle's passenger side. Appellants asserted that although crack cocaine was found adjacent to the car, a fingerprint analysis conducted on the bag was inconclusive and failed to associate the bag with any vehicle occupants. Further, a trained narcotics sniffing dog did not find any other controlled substances in the vehicle.

At the conclusion of the forfeiture hearing, the district court found that the vehicle at the time it was stopped "contained a sandwich bag containing nine rocks of crack cocaine * * * [with] a retail value of $180.00." The court concluded that the action had been properly initiated as an administrative forfeiture. In light of the police officer's testimony, we hold that the district court's finding that the vehicle contained illegal drugs is supported by the record and does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Further, as administrative forfeitures may be initiated for conveyance devices containing $100 or more of illegal drugs, we hold that the district court was correct in concluding that the action was appropriately initiated as an administrative forfeiture pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.5314.

II.

Appellants next argue that once an administrative forfeiture is contested, it becomes a judicial forfeiture procedure, and therefore they should have been permitted to plead an innocent owner defense at their forfeiture hearing. The state contends that the forfeiture statutes set out two entirely different forfeiture mechanisms for different types of property, and that forfeitures initiated as administrative forfeitures do not incorporate the innocent owner defense. As this issue presents conflicting interpretations of the forfeiture statutes, we review it de novo. See Wynkoop v. Carpenter, 574 N.W.2d 422, 425 (Minn.1998) (citing Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372, 375 (Minn.1996)).

Against a backdrop of increasing drug crime, the legislature created a scheme permitting forfeitures of property used in connection with drug crimes. The framework for forfeitures of property associated with or connected to controlled substances is set out in Minn.Stat. §§ 609.531-.5319 (1998). In the legislature's own words, these forfeiture laws aim:

(1) to enforce the law; (2) to deter crime; (3) to reduce the economic incentive to engage in criminal enterprise; (4) to increase the pecuniary loss resulting from the detection of criminal activity; and (5) to forfeit property unlawfully used or acquired and divert the property to law enforcement purposes.

Minn.Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1a. In order to achieve its goals, the legislature delineated two types of forfeiture procedures, judicial and administrative. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.5313-.5314 (1998).

Both administrative and judicial forfeiture procedures may be initiated to confiscate certain properties found in proximity to controlled substances, and also "conveyance devices containing controlled substances with a retail value of $100 or more * * *." Minn.Stat. § 609.5314, subd. 1(a)(2) (emphasis added). Judicial forfeiture procedures may also be initiated to confiscate a conveyance device "if the retail value of the controlled substance is $25 or more and the conveyance device is ...