Washington: Supreme Court Limits Car Seizure

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper
washington supreme court limits car seizure

Law enforcement agencies in Washington will no longer be able to confiscate automobiles from innocent vehicle owners thanks to a ruling handed down yesterday by the state’s highest court. The Supreme Court of Washington ordered the return of a 2004 Nissan Sentra and a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle that the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force had grabbed from the parents of Thomas E. Roos, 27. Problems for the younger Roos began when he was first caught on June 10, 2005 driving in the Nissan with illicit drugs and a lot of cash. The Nissan was impounded, but Roos was able to forge his father’s signature to retrieve it from the lot before his parents found out. By September, he had been arrested three more times and the task force had permanently confiscated both cars.

Alan and Stephne Roos first appeared before an administrative hearing in February 2006 to assert that they had no idea when they gave their son permission to borrow the automobiles that he would use them for drug dealing. The hearing officer decided that the parents’ actual knowledge was not relevant because “they had a reason to know.” The hearing officer, a Snohomish County sheriff’s employee, ruled that the vehicles should be kept for the benefit of the Snohomish County sheriff’s task force.

Upon review, the high court did not believe this procedure was consistent with the legislature’s explicit intention of protecting innocent owners. The state law in question only authorizes vehicle confiscation if a crime was committed with “the owner’s knowledge or consent,” although the law does shift the burden to the vehicle owner to prove his own innocence.

“We assume the legislature means exactly what it says and interpret the wording of statutes according to those terms,” Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote for the majority. “This legislative choice also makes sense in the overall context of what is occurring… Perhaps a person should know many things, but often the opposite could be true, like here: The parents could have just as easily presumed their son’s criminal activities would stop after the first arrest just as they could have suspected their son’s criminal activities would continue.”

The court noted that Thomas Roos did not live with his parents and that the youth lived a “secretive” life. Thomas Roos did everything he could to hide his activities from his parents.

“We do not have sufficient objective facts here to determine the subjective knowledge of Alan and Stephne during the relevant time period of Thomas’ criminal activity involving his parents’ vehicles,” Johnson concluded. “As such, we cannot agree with the trial court and the court of appeals that Thomas’ parents had actual knowledge but simply stuck their heads in the sand.”

Justice Barbara A. Madsen disagreed, insisting that the word ‘knowledge’ could have many meanings. She also argued that the confiscation statute uses civil procedures so that those who have not committed any crime may still be punished.

“The plain meaning rule rested on theories of language and meaning, now discredited, which held that words have inherent or fixed meanings,” Madsen wrote in her dissent. “What is clear is that our legislature did not write the innocent owner exception to allow everyone save the person who committed the crime giving rise to forfeiture to qualify as an innocent owner.”

Madsen’s dissent allowed that the Nissan economy car should be returned, but that the classic Chevelle should be kept by the task force. Because only four of the nine justices agreed with the Madsen approach, both cars will be reunited with their owners.

A copy of the decision is available in a 130k PDF file at the source link below.

1970 Chevrolet Chevelle v. Snohomish Drug Task Force (Supreme Court, State of Washington, 9/3/2009)

Join the conversation
2 of 14 comments
  • Yankinwaoz Yankinwaoz on Sep 04, 2009

    50merc is right. Is it $10k aggregate in cash transactions. A money order or anything else would have been fine. I used to work at a bank writing their software and I wrote the system to comply with this law. I felt it was stupid because cash heavy companies, such as a McDonald's franchise deposit on a Monday morning, would end up on the report. However I was told by legal that we couldn't make any exceptions. So they stayed on the report and were reported every time they had a good day or weekend. We would then have to send the IRS a tape of these transactions every day. What they did with it, I was never told. And trying to hide large cash deposits across multiple transactions and/or account wouldn't help you. I would measure the aggregate cash for any customer across all their accounts for a day to see if they hit the threshold.

  • Joeaverage Joeaverage on Sep 07, 2009

    When Johnny Drugdealer Jr. gets arrested toting around rugs in Mom's and Dad's car then the car ought to be returned to the parents. The SECOND time the car is found to be in the kid's possession and with drugs on board then the car ought to be confiscated. Perhaps Mom and Dad would like to get their car back a second time and call it vehicle theft on top of their child's drug dealing. Any third convictions by anyone using the car for drug activity means the car gets impounded and the owner threatened with 30 or 45 days in jail for not better controlling the whereabouts of his/her vehicle.

  • Wjtinfwb I've seen worse on the highways around Atlanta, usually with a refrigerator or washer wedged into the trunk and secured with recycled twine...
  • Wjtinfwb Surprising EB Flex hasn't weighed in yet on it being the subject of a recall...
  • Gabe Awesome. Owners can cook their DNA with EMFs while watching YouTube now.
  • Cardave5150 Why oh why are they resurrecting the ZDX name??? It’s not like the last one was anything other than an overpriced freak show. Just use 3 other random letters!
  • Gemcitytm Why does it seem every EV seems to have ridiculous amounts of power? Yes, I know they're heavier than ICE models but who on earth needs 708 HP? How about a nice, compact EV with, say, 250 HP and 350-400 mile range? Is that impossible with today's tech? (I currently drive a 148 HP Mazda 3 ICE and it has all the get-up-and-go I need.)