In re Forfeiture of One 1970 Chevrolet

• Decision Date: 17 September 2007
• Docket Number: No. 58943-1-I.,No. 58944-0-I.,58943-1-I.,58944-0-I.
• Citation: 140 Wn. App. 802,167 P.3d 599
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: In the Matter of the FORFEITURE OF ONE 1970 CHEVROLET CHEVELLE (WLN CV02849). In the Matter of the Forfeiture of one 2004 Nissan Sentra (WLN 93724L). Alan and Stephne Roos, Appellants, v. Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, Respondent.

167 P.3d 599

140 Wn. App. 802

In the Matter of the FORFEITURE OF ONE 1970 CHEVROLET CHEVELLE (WLN CV02849).

In the Matter of the Forfeiture of one 2004 Nissan Sentra (WLN 93724L).

Alan and Stephne Roos, Appellants, v. Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, Respondent.

No. 58943-1-I.

No. 58944-0-I.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

September 17, 2007.

Peter Mazzone, Mazzone and Markwell, Lawyers, Everett, WA, for Appellants.

Janice Elizabeth Ellis, Snohomish Co. Pros. Atty. Ofc., Everett, WA, for Respondent.

DWYER, J.

¶ 1 Alan and Stephne Roos are the registered owners of two motor vehicles that were seized by the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force (SRDTF) pursuant to RCW 69.50.505, the seizure and forfeiture provision of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. On several different occasions in 2005, police officers arrested Thomas Roos, Alan and Stephne's son, and, incident to those arrests, conducted searches of his vehicles that uncovered various illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. After a hearing, a designated hearing officer for the Snohomish County Sheriff ordered the vehicles forfeited. The Snohomish County Superior Court affirmed the order of forfeiture.

¶ 2 On appeal, Alan and Stephne contend that they are subject to the "innocent owner" exception to the vehicle seizure and forfeiture provision, RCW 69.50.505, and that the hearing officer's findings to the contrary are not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree, and hold that the "innocent owner" exception may not be relied upon to prevent forfeiture of a vehicle when a claimant knew or should have known that the vehicle was being used to acquire possession of controlled substances. We further hold that substantial evidence supports the finding that Alan and Stephne possessed such knowledge. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS

¶ 3 On June 10, 2005, a Lynnwood police officer observed 24-year-old Thomas Roos unconscious in the driver's seat of a 2004 Nissan Sentra parked in a carwash parking lot. The Nissan was registered to Alan and Stephne Roos. The officer roused Thomas and arrested him on suspicion of driving while under the influence. A search of the Nissan incident to that arrest uncovered various controlled substances, including methamphetamine and oxycodone pills, as well as drug paraphernalia, $21,406 in cash, and a notebook containing a list of names and corresponding sums of money. Thomas was booked into the Snohomish County Jail on the charge of manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. A friend of Thomas's posted bail for him and secured his release.¹

¶ 4 On July 3, 2005, a police officer pulled Thomas over while he was driving a friend's vehicle, and arrested him for driving with a suspended license. A subsequent search of the vehicle pursuant to a search warrant uncovered a large quantity of controlled substances including methamphetamine, cocaine, and oxycodone pills. The search also uncovered drug paraphernalia, $5,266 in cash, a drug ledger, and a licensing renewal notice for the Nissan which bore the handwritten notation, "For Tom." Thomas was booked into the Snohomish County Jail for felony possession of methamphetamine. Stephne was notified of Thomas's arrest, and arranged to have bail posted for his release. Stephne testified that she also learned of Thomas's prior arrest at that time, and that some drugs were involved. The bail bond documents signed by Stephne did not list the offenses with which Thomas was being charged.

¶ 5 On August 16, 2005, a police officer observed Thomas again unconscious in the driver's seat of the Nissan. The vehicle was parked in a convenience store parking lot with the engine running. The police officer roused Thomas and arrested him on suspicion of driving while under the influence. The police officer conducted a search of Thomas and the vehicle incident to that arrest, which uncovered a large quantity of controlled substances, including a baggie containing 77 oxycodone pills and a 110-gram brick of cocaine. The search also uncovered $6,600 in cash and a large quantity of various personal items belonging to Thomas, which filled between five and eight large trash bags. Thomas's brother drove by the scene of the arrest while it was underway, and subsequently notified Alan of the unfolding events. Alan then proceeded to the scene where police officers informed him that Thomas was being placed under arrest and showed him the items uncovered during the search of the Nissan.

¶ 6 The SRDTF then seized the Nissan pursuant to RCW 69.50.505, the seizure and forfeiture provision of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Thomas was booked into the Snohomish County Jail for possession of a controlled substance. Stephne subsequently posted bail for Thomas and secured his release. The bail bond documents signed by Stephne identify the charge against Thomas as "poss of cont sub x2."

¶ 7 On September 9, 2005, a police officer observed Thomas unconscious in the driver's seat of a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle, registered to Stephne, while the vehicle was parked in a convenience store parking lot. After rousing Thomas, the police officer ran a check on Thomas's name and learned of the existence of an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The police officer arrested Thomas and conducted a search incident to that arrest. The search of Thomas uncovered several controlled substances, including 38 oxycodone pills, as well as drug paraphernalia and $1,530 in cash. A subsequent search of the vehicle pursuant to a search warrant uncovered additional controlled substances, including several more oxycodone pills, 4.8 grams of cocaine, additional drug paraphernalia, and a large quantity of various personal items belonging to Thomas, which filled between five and eight large trash bags. The SRDTF then seized the Chevrolet pursuant to RCW 69.50.505.

¶ 8 The SRDTF subsequently sought forfeiture of both the Nissan and the Chevrolet. Alan and Stephne filed claims for return of the vehicles, asserting that they were subject to the "innocent owner" exception to the vehicle forfeiture provision. RCW 69.50.505(1)(d)(ii). Alan and Stephne claimed that they gave Thomas permission to use both vehicles temporarily, but that they did not know that Thomas was using the vehicles for illegal purposes.

¶ 9 A hearing was held before a designated hearing officer for the Snohomish County Sheriff. Alan, Stephne, and Thomas all testified. The hearing officer found that the SRDTF had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that both vehicles were used to facilitate drug trafficking, subjecting the vehicles to forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.50.505. The hearing officer further found that Alan and Stephne had failed to prove that they were entitled to the benefit of the "innocent owner" exception to the vehicle forfeiture provision of the statute. Accordingly, the hearing officer ordered the vehicles forfeited.

¶ 10 Alan and Stephne petitioned for judicial review by the Snohomish County Superior Court, which affirmed the order of forfeiture. The superior court noted that a vehicle is subject to forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.50.505 when the vehicle is used to facilitate the "receipt" of drugs.² Accordingly, the trial court interpreted the statute to require only that such a vehicle be used to acquire possession of drugs, rather than to facilitate the sale or delivery of drugs. The trial court concluded that substantial evidence supported a finding that Alan and Stephne knew or should have known that Thomas was using the vehicles to acquire possession of drugs.

¶ 11 This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

¶ 12 RCW 69.50.505, the seizure and forfeiture provision of the Controlled Substances Act, provides in relevant part:

(1) The following are subject to seizure and forfeiture and no property right exists in them:

. . . .

(d) All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or intended for use, in any manner to facilitate the sale, delivery, or receipt of [controlled substances], except that:

. . .

(ii) No conveyance is subject to forfeiture under this section by reason of any act or omission established by the owner thereof to have been committed or omitted without the owner's knowledge or consent.

RCW 69.50.505 (emphasis added). The exception contained in subsection (1)(d)(ii) of the statute is commonly referred to as the "innocent owner" exception.

¶ 13 The burden of proof in a case concerning the forfeiture of property pursuant to RCW 69.50.505 shifts from one party to the other. RCW 69.50.505(5) provides that, "[i]n all cases, the burden of proof is upon the law enforcement agency to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture." RCW 69.50.506(a) provides that "[t]he burden of proof of any exemption or exception is upon the person claiming it." Accordingly, claimants asserting that they are subject to the innocent owner exception to the vehicle forfeiture provision bear the burden of demonstrating that the requirements of the exception are satisfied.

¶ 14 Alan and Stephne do not challenge the hearing officer's finding that the SRDTF met its initial burden of proving that the vehicles were subject to forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.50.505(1)(d). They assert, however, that they are entitled to the benefit of the "innocent owner" exception to that provision.

Knowledge

¶ 15 Initially, the parties disagree as to what mental state must be proved by a claimant to invoke the innocent owner exception to the vehicle forfeiture provision. We hold that a claimant may not successfully invoke the innocent owner exception to prevent forfeiture of a vehicle where the claimant knew or should have known that the vehicle was being used to acquire possession of controlled substances.

¶ 16 Again, a claimant may benefit from the innocent owner exception to RCW 69.50.505(1)(d), the vehicle forfeiture provision, only where the claimant is...