No. 01-579 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

 

2003 MT 6N 

ANACONDA DEER LODGE COUNTY LAW 

ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

v. 

ONE 1994 FORD TRUCK, 

STEVEN M BERRINGTON, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Deer Lodge, 

The Honorable Ted L. Mizner, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Steven M. Berrington, Bozeman, Montana (Pro Se) 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, 

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Michael B. Grayson, Deer Lodge County Attorney, 

Anaconda, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: December 13, 2002 

 Decided: January 17, 2003 

Filed: 

__________________________________________ 

Clerk
2 

Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1996 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be 

cited as precedent but shall be filed as a public document with the 

Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, 

Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter 

Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of 

noncitable cases issued by this Court. 

¶2 Steven M. Berrington (Berrington) appeals from the findings of 

fact, conclusions of law and order entered by the Third Judicial 

District Court, Deer Lodge County, granting the petition for 

forfeiture filed by the Anaconda Deer Lodge County Law Enforcement 

Department (Department). We affirm. 

¶3 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in 

granting the Department’s forfeiture petition. 

 BACKGROUND 

¶4 On the night of April 15, 2000, a Department officer on patrol 

in Anaconda, Montana, observed a vehicle matching the description 

of one owned by Berrington. Aware warrants existed for 

Berrington’s arrest, the officer attempted to stop the vehicle. 

The driver of the vehicle, later identified as Berrington, tried to 

elude the officer, but eventually pulled over to the side of the 

road. Berrington then exited the vehicle and ran away on foot. 

Several hours later, Department officers responded to a call that a 

man matching Berrington’s description was at a private residence 
3 

asking to use the telephone and refusing to leave the premises. 

The officers arrived at the residence, found Berrington and 

arrested him. The officers then conducted a pat-down search of 

Berrington for weapons, during which they discovered two small 

containers containing a white powdery substance suspected--and 

later established--to be methamphetamine. 

¶5 Berrington was on probation at the time of his arrest. On 

April 17, 2000, Department officers contacted Berrington’s 

probation officer and requested that the probation officer 

authorize a search of Berrington’s vehicle. The search uncovered 

additional methamphetamine, two firearms and drug paraphernalia. 

Berrington subsequently was charged with--and pleaded guilty to--a 

variety of offenses, including felony criminal possession of 

dangerous drugs. 

¶6 The Department then filed a petition alleging that 

Berrington’s vehicle was a conveyance used to unlawfully transport 

methamphetamine and requesting the District Court to declare the 

vehicle forfeit pursuant to Title 44, Chapter 12 of the Montana 

Code Annotated (MCA). Berrington opposed the petition, arguing 

that evidence of the methamphetamine found in his vehicle should be 

suppressed as gained through an unlawful search and that, absent 

the evidence, the Department could not establish a basis for the 

forfeiture. The District Court held a hearing and later entered 

findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order granting the 

Department’s petition. Berrington appeals. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 
4 

¶7 In reviewing a district court’s grant of a forfeiture 

petition, we review its findings of fact to determine whether they 

are clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law to determine 

whether the court correctly interpreted the law. In the Matter of 

the Seizure of $23,691.00 in U.S. Currency (1995), 273 Mont. 474, 

483, 905 P.2d 148, 154. 

 DISCUSSION 

¶8 Did the District Court err in granting the Department’s 

forfeiture petition? 

¶9 As stated above, the Department brought its forfeiture 

petition pursuant to Montana’s forfeiture statutes. Section 44-12-

102(1)(d), MCA, provides that any vehicle used or intended to be 

used to facilitate the commission of a drug offense is subject to 

forfeiture. Moreover, § 44-12-103(1), MCA, provides that 

[a] peace officer who has probable cause to make an 

arrest for a violation of Title 45, chapter 9 [a drug 

offense], probable cause to believe that a conveyance has 

been used or is intended to be used to unlawfully 

transport a controlled substance, or probable cause to 

believe that a conveyance has been used to keep, deposit, 

or conceal a controlled substance shall seize the 

conveyance so used or intended to be used or any 

conveyance in which a controlled substance is unlawfully 

possessed by an occupant. He shall immediately deliver a 

conveyance that he seizes to the offices of his law 

enforcement agency, to be held as evidence until 

forfeiture is declared or release ordered. 

A presumption of forfeiture exists regarding most property eligible 

for forfeiture under § 44-12-102, MCA, including vehicles; the 

presumption may be rebutted by the property owner proving the 

property was not used for the purpose charged or was used without 

his consent. Sections 44-12-203(1) and 44-12-204, MCA. 
5 

¶10 The Department’s petition alleged that Berrington’s vehicle 

was subject to forfeiture pursuant to these statutes because it was 

used, and intended to be used, by Berrington for the transportation 

and possession of dangerous drugs in violation of § 45-9-102, MCA. 

 The District Court concluded, following a hearing, that the 

Department had proven by clear and convincing evidence the vehicle 

was used to transport methamphetamine, Berrington had not offered 

proof to overcome the presumption of forfeiture and, as a result, 

the vehicle was subject to forfeiture. 

¶11 Berrington argues that the District Court’s conclusion the 

vehicle was used to transport methamphetamine is erroneous and, 

consequently, its further conclusion that the vehicle was subject 

to forfeiture also is erroneous. Specifically, he asserts that the 

Department’s petition was based on the discovery of methamphetamine 

in his vehicle as a result of the search authorized by his 

probation officer and that the search was illegal because it was 

conducted for the purposes of a criminal investigation rather than 

for legitimate probation purposes. On that basis, Berrington 

contends that the District Court should have suppressed the 

evidence of the methamphetamine found in his vehicle and, had the 

court done so, there would be no basis for the forfeiture. We need 

not address the legality of the search of Berrington’s vehicle. 

¶12 In its findings of fact, the District Court determined that, 

at the time Berrington was arrested, there was 

[f]ound on his person . . . two small containers that 

contained a white powdery substance suspected to be 

Methamphetamine. During the time of this man-hunt Mr. 

Berrington did not have the opportunity to acquire the 
6 

dangerous drug elsewhere thereby leading to the 

conclusion that he possessed the dangerous drug while 

eluding police officers while driving and while on foot. 

Berrington offered no evidence at the hearing on the petition to 

dispute these facts and does not challenge the finding on appeal. 

Consequently, according to the District Court’s finding, Berrington 

was in possession of the two small containers of methamphetamine in 

violation of § 45-9-102, MCA, at the time he was driving his 

vehicle and the vehicle was used to transport those containers. As 

a result, and on that basis, his vehicle was subject to seizure and 

forfeiture pursuant to §§ 44-12-102 and 44-12-103, MCA, regardless 

of the discovery of the additional methamphetamine in the vehicle 

during the subsequent search. 

¶13 We conclude that the District Court’s conclusions of law that 

Berrington’s vehicle was used to transport methamphetamine and was 

subject to forfeiture are not erroneous. We hold, therefore, that 

the District Court did not err in granting the Department’s 

forfeiture petition. 

¶14 Affirmed. 

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY 

We concur: 

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON 

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER 

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART 

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER