Escamilla v. Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force

• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BROWN, A.C.J.
• Citation: Escamilla v. Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force, 999 P.2d 625, 100 Wash.App. 742 (Wash. App. 2000)
• Decision Date: 04 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 18369-6-III.
• Parties: Alfonso ESCAMILLA and Maggie Escamilla, husband and wife, Appellants, v. TRI-CITY METRO DRUG TASK FORCE, Respondent.

999 P.2d 625

100 Wash.App. 742

Alfonso ESCAMILLA and Maggie Escamilla, husband and wife, Appellants, v. TRI-CITY METRO DRUG TASK FORCE, Respondent.

No. 18369-6-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel Three.

May 4, 2000.

Antonio Salazar, Seattle, for Appellants.

Sylvia T. Cornish, Terry J. Bloor, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys, Kennewick, for Respondent.

BROWN, A.C.J.

The Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force (Metro) seized a vehicle and $27,397 from Alfonso and Maggie Escamilla after Mr. Escamilla was arrested for possessing drugs. At an administrative hearing the property was forfeited to Metro under RCW 69.50.505 as proceeds from illegal drug transactions. We affirm after deciding the administrative hearing was timely, Metro met its burden of proving the property represented illegal proceeds of drug sales, and Mrs. Escamilla's innocent owner defense was properly rejected.

FACTS

On December 15, 1994, police arrested Alfonso Escamilla after finding three kilos of cocaine in his truck. The truck and $180 were seized for forfeiture. On the same day, in the presence of Mr. Escamilla's wife, Maggie, police searched the Escamillas' home. Seized were three packages of cash totaling $14,000 found under a nightstand and $3,289 found in a dresser drawer. The next day, officers seized $10,000 cash that Mrs. Escamilla brought in to post bail for Mr. Escamilla. In all, Metro seized $27,397.

On December 16 and 20, 1994, Metro sent seizure notices to the Escamillas. On December 29, by letter, the Escamillas requested a hearing. Mr. Escamilla was charged with controlled substance crimes in both state and federal court. The state trial was set to proceed February 13, 1995. According to the forfeiture hearing officer's findings, Metro "advised the claimants that a hearing would be set after the conclusion of Mr. Escamilla's criminal trial." Metro did not give written notice of the hearing date until March 24, 1995, the day the state criminal trial concluded by acquittal. The Escamillas' attorney received this notice on March 30. The hearing was originally scheduled for April 18, then, by agreement subject to a timeliness objection, continued to April 25, when testimony began. The administrative hearing was not completed until April 16, 1997, due to delays attributable to the Escamillas. In February 1996, Mr. Escamilla pleaded guilty in federal court, admitting to dealing drugs and laundering money in a conspiracy related to his December 15, 1994 arrest.

Initially, Mrs. Escamilla revealed her husband was not working due to a disability and had been a partner in a construction business. She knew of just one job completed before the partners disbanded. She reported about $600 per month in rental income, and bank accounts with a total balance of about $29,000. Mrs. Escamilla said she knew something was odd because they seemed to have a lot of money all of the time. She denied knowing that Mr. Escamilla was selling drugs. She said that Mr. Escamilla had recently received a $12,000 insurance settlement.

Metro introduced the Escamillas' financial and bank records and Mr. Escamilla's federal court guilty plea admitting drug dealing between 1994 and January 1995, and specifically, converting $18,000 of Canadian drug proceeds. Mrs. Escamilla was employed at a bank earning approximately $1,000 per month. Her net yearly income in November 1994, shortly before Mr. Escamilla's arrest, was $12,744.48. Income tax returns showed the Escamillas' 1993, 1992, and 1991 gross income was $29,173, $36,990.60, and $25,037. Bank records showed between June 6 and August 15, 1994, the Escamillas made deposits to two money market accounts totaling $75,600. Between April and October 1994, they spent $3,000 for a down payment on a new residence, over $20,000 for home addition supplies, $5,069.55 for furniture, and $4,654 for credit card purchases.

The Escamillas, reserving the timeliness issue, conceded forfeiture of the $14,000, $180, and truck seized but contested the $10,000 and $3,289 seized. Mrs. Escamilla testified one of the money market accounts in her name was for a friend who had recently sold her house and asked Mrs. Escamilla to hold the proceeds. She produced a cancelled check and deposit slip to verify the source of this money and claimed that she returned the money to her friend. The bank records on this account, however, showed that Mrs. Escamilla made several withdrawals and then closed the account with a money order made out to herself for an amount smaller than the original deposit. Metro argued this account activity was inconsistent with holding a sum of money for a friend.

Mrs. Escamilla testified that funds in the other money market account came from their personal savings, insurance settlements, and business distributions from the partnership breakup. She produced two checks made out to her husband in 1994 totaling over $26,000 that she claimed were disbursements from Mr. Escamilla's contracting business. She also testified that the $3,289 found in the dresser by the police was taken from their account for the partnership and produced a check made out to "cash" for this amount written the day before Mr. Escamilla was arrested. She did not produce documentation for the alleged insurance settlements or her 1994 income tax returns.

The hearing officer ordered forfeiture for all items seized. The superior court rejected the Escamillas' petition for review after adopting the agency's findings and conclusions. The Escamillas appealed.

ANALYSIS

A. Timeliness

The issue is whether the hearing officer erred by failing to dismiss the forfeiture proceedings as untimely under RCW 69.50.505. The Escamillas contend that despite the wording of RCW 34.05.413(5) the forfeiture hearing should have taken place within 90 days of seizure.

RCW 69.50.505 generally provides that law enforcement may seize property without process when probable cause exists to believe the property is being used for illegal drug activity, or represents proceeds of illegal drug sales. The seizing agency must provide notice of the seizure to any interested persons within 15 days of making the seizure. RCW 69.50.505(c). A person claiming an interest in personal property seized must notify the seizing agency within 45 days, or 90 days in the case of real property. RCW 69.50.505(e). The statute provides that a person filing a timely notice "shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to the claim or right," but does not provide for the time within which this hearing must be commenced. RCW 69.50.505(e).

Although the Escamillas assign error to several findings of fact, the findings in dispute are actually conclusions of law. Findings of fact that are incorrectly labeled will be reviewed as conclusions of law. See Woodruff v. McClellan, 95 Wash.2d 394, 396, 622 P.2d 1268 (1980). The hearing officer's findings concerning event dates and notices are not disputed. Our review is de novo giving deference to the hearing officer's factual determinations, using a "clearly erroneous" standard. Clarke v. Shoreline Sch. Dist. No. 412, 106 Wash.2d 102, 109-10, 720 P.2d 793 (1986). Thus, a reviewing court is "free to determine the correct law independent of the hearing officer's decision and apply it to the facts as found by the hearing officer." Id. at 110, 720 P.2d 793.

First we discuss Tellevik v. Real Property Known as 31641 W. Rutherford St., 120 Wash.2d 68, 838 P.2d 111, 845 P.2d 1325 (1992) (Tellevik I); Tellevik v. Real Property Known as 31641 W. Rutherford St., 125 Wash.2d 364, 884 P.2d 1319 (1994) (Tellevik II). Tellevik I was a real estate seizure in which the court was asked to decide whether RCW 69.50.505 was facially valid and constitutional as applied. In concluding that the statute was valid, the court originally held "the statute requires a full adversarial hearing with judicial review within 90 days of the seizure of real property if the claimant notifies the seizing agency in writing." See Tellevik I, 120 Wash.2d at 87, 838 P.2d 111 (emphasis added). This opinion was amended to strike "of the seizure of real property," and add a citation to RCW 34.05.419. Id.; see also Tellevik II, 125 Wash.2d 364, 884 P.2d 1319.

After Tellevik I was remanded, the case came back before the Supreme Court when the State failed to set a trial date within 90 days of the mandate. In Tellevik II, the court took the opportunity to reaffirm its holding in Tellevik I:

We also recognized [in Tellevik I] that where a predeprivation hearing is ex parte, a prompt postdeprivation hearing is an integral component of due process. This court construed the forfeiture statute so as to entitle claimants "to a full adversarial hearing within 90 days if they contest the seizure" and placed the burden "upon the seizing agency to prove the real property is subject to seizure."

Tellevik II, 125 Wash.2d at 371-72, 884 P.2d 1319 (quoting Tellevik I, 120 Wash.2d at 86, 838 P.2d 111). Although the Court reaffirmed Tellevik I, it dismissed the State's forfeiture action for failing to hold a hearing within 90 days of the mandate in Tellevik I. Tellevik II at 372, 884 P.2d 1319.

Division One examined timeliness issues in two cases published within weeks of each other. First, the court interpreted Tellevik I and Tellevik II as requiring full adversarial forfeiture hearings within 90 days of the seizure of real property, then applied this rule to personal property seizures. Espinoza v. City of Everett, 87 Wash.App. 857, 865-66, 869, 943 P.2d 387 (1997), review denied, 134 Wash.2d 1016, 958 P.2d 315 (1998). The Espinoza court reasoned that Tellevik I was amended "to remove a reference to real property." Id. at 869, 943 P.2d 387. But the language stricken from Tellevik I referred to "the seizure" as triggering the 90-day period for a hearing. See Tellevik II, 125 Wash.2d 364, 884 P.2d 1319.

Next, Division One decided a case quite similar to ours. In re Forfeiture of One 1988 Black...