Title: In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang
Citation: 105 Ariz. 293, 463 P.2d 827
Docket Number: 9802-PR
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: January 15, 1970

105 Ariz. 293 (1970) 463 P.2d 827 In the Matter of ONE 1965 FORD MUSTANG, Motor No. 5RO7A242628, License No. HGH-968. The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Rose I. LEWIS, Appellee. No. 9802-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. January 15, 1970. *294 Robert K. Corbin, former Maricopa County Atty., Moise Berger, Maricopa County Atty., H. Louis Hiser, Deputy County Atty., for appellant. Kramer, Roche, Burch, Streich &amp; Cracchiolo, by Frank Haze Burch and B. Michael Dann, Phoenix, for appellee. Harrison, Strick, Myers &amp; Singer, by Mark I. Harrison, Phoenix, for amicus curiae Car and Truck Rental Leasing Association of Arizona (CATRALA). McFARLAND, Justice: This case comes before this Court on the petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, Division One, decided by Division Two, reported in 10 Ariz. App. 45, 455 P.2d 995, reversing a judgment of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, which held that § 36-1041, A.R.S., was unconstitutional. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case involved the forfeiture of a 1965 Ford Mustang automobile. The State of Arizona filed an action in accordance with § 36-1041, A.R.S., et seq., to forfeit the 1965 Ford Mustang, alleging that it had been used to transport unlawfully a narcotic drug marijuana. The automobile was owned by Rose I. Lewis, hereinafter referred to as owner or mother. She is the mother of Michael Lewis, who was seventeen years old at the time of the alleged use. The testimony shows that one Ralph Robinson, an undercover agent for the Arizona State Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, contacted Michael to purchase marijuana for him. According to the agent's testimony, he agreed to make the purchase on the second time he was contacted, and according to Michael's testimony he had requested it at least twice before. It is undisputed that prior to the time that he agreed to make the purchase he had told the agent he could not do so. However, on the evening of April 13, 1967, Michael agreed to obtain a quantity of marijuana for the agent, but told him that he would have to have the money in advance in order to make the purchase. They agreed to meet at the Uptown Plaza shopping center in Phoenix the next day. Michael arrived at the shopping center the next evening driving the 1965 Ford Mustang which is the subject of the present proceedings, at which time the agent gave him the money to purchase the marijuana. There is a conflict in the testimony as to the amount of money given at the time, Michael testifying that the agent gave him $30, and the agent testifying that he gave him $12. Michael returned with the marijuana in the Mustang, and according to the undisputed testimony delivered to the agent at least one package. *295 The mother testified that she had no knowledge that her car was being used to transport marijuana; that Michael had been a good boy; that she had no reason to believe that her son Michael was engaged in the use or transportation of marijuana; that she had never received any information from any officer of the law, or any one else, to give her any reason to believe that the automobile had been used for such purposes; that she believed her son to be a person of good character and reputation, and morally responsible. She stated that she had permitted her son to use the automobile to go to and from school and on that particular occasion to take it to the library. Section 36-1041 through 1046, A.R.S., set forth the procedure for the forfeiture and makes exception for forfeiture to lien holders, mortgagees, or those holding title under conditional sales.[1] *296 The lower court denied forfeiture on the ground that the forfeiture statutes were unconstitutional. Forfeiture statutes have been classified into two categories (1) Where the article forfeited is contraband per se; and (2) Where the article forfeited is derivative contraband that is, only when it is used in the violation of the law. In the first category the statutes have been held clearly constitutional because the possession of the article itself is of such a nature that it constitutes a crime. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S. Ct. 1246, 14 L. Ed. 2d 170. It is clear that the use of an automobile for the transportation of narcotic drugs falls in the second category. Even under this line of cases, statutes which provide for forfeiture where property, which is not itself obnoxious to the law, is used with the consent of the owner but without his knowledge that it is to be used for illegal purposes have been held to be constitutional. Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U.S. 465, 467, 47 S. Ct. 133, 134, 71 L. Ed. 354. Also, one of the leading state cases so holding is that of People v. One 1948 Chevrolet Convertible Coupe, 45 Cal. 2d 613, 290 P.2d 538, 55 A.L.R.2d 1272, in which case the owner consented to the use of the automobile but its use for the transportation of the narcotic was without her knowledge. The case was similar to the facts in the instant case, in that the mother had entrusted the automobile to the use of her son, the son having full knowledge that the passenger riding with him in the car possessed narcotics. Justice Traynor held that the automobile was subject to forfeiture because the person to whom the owner had entrusted the car itself had knowledge of the transportation of the narcotic, and that it was not necessary for the owner to know of the illegal use; that by entrusting the vehicle to her son she accepted the risk that he would use it contrary to the law. However, as pointed out in the brief of Amicus Curiae, the Car and Truck Rental Leasing Association of Arizona (CATRALA), after *297 Justice Traynor's opinion was handed down the California Assembly repealed its automobile forfeiture statute in 1967. Some courts follow the cases holding it to be constitutional to forfeit property under such statutes where the owner had no knowledge of the illegal use. But many states do not have forfeiture statutes. Others have statutory exemptions to innocent owners. However, in the instant case, the owner contends that under our statute the legislature intended that knowledge of the illegal use is required before forfeiture. In refuting the argument to the contrary, she stated: It will be noted that a strict construction of § 36-1041, A.R.S., would permit forfeiture of the automobile of an innocent owner. In Hoover v. People, 68 Colo.2d 249, 187 P. 531, which involved a forfeiture under a statute dealing with illegally transporting intoxicating liquor, the court said: *298 In the case of 1957 Chevrolet v. Division of Narcotic Control, 27 Ill. 2d 429, 189 N.E.2d 347, the statute of Illinois provides: In construing this statute the Illinois court said: In the case of 1957 Chevrolet v. Division of Narcotic Control, supra, the Illinois court, in holding that a statute must be given a reasonable and commonsense interpretation, used the words: This was a reasonable approach to the situation that confronted the Illinois court in interpreting a statute similar to that of the State of Arizona, and was in line with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746, holding that a forfeiture statute was a quasi-criminal proceeding; and the decision in Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, supra, holding that the object of the statute was to penalize for a criminal offense. In the latter case, in holding that forfeiture was quasi-criminal in character, and *299 that the object was to penalize for commission of a violation of the law, the United States Supreme Court stated: The Court thereby held that the exclusionary rule in criminal procedure applied for the reason that the forfeiture was a penalty for a criminal offense. Under the present state of constitutional development, there can be no question but that forfeiture of an automobile is punishment for a criminal offense. It is the only way a car could be forfeited; otherwise, it would be taking property without due process of law. In the instant case, under the statute, the forfeiture was likewise a penalty because the automobile was used in a criminal offense. Therefore, under the principle of law set forth in the Plymouth Sedan case, the necessary intent to commit the offense as set forth in § 13-131, A.R.S., would be applicable. It provides, in part: In a forfeiture case, if an automobile is to be forfeited the application of this rule of criminal law would require that the owner of the vehicle must intentionally permit a third person to use the automobile for transportation of narcotics. The trial court stated at the conclusion of the hearing that the statute did not give an innocent owner an opportunity to avoid forfeiture, and upon this basis held However, we do not hold that the owner does not have such a right. We must look to the intent of the legislature in interpreting a statute. This Court has held many times that a legislative act is presumed to be constitutional, and that every intendment *300 must be indulged in by this Court in favor of its validity. Schecter v. Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. 273, 380 P.2d 136. See also: State v. Locks, 91 Ariz. 394, 372 P.2d 724; Whitney v. Bolin, 85 Ariz. 44, 330 P.2d 1003; State Bd. of Technical Registration v. McDaniel, 84 Ariz. 223, 326 P.2d 348; State v. Smith, 31 Ariz. 297, 252 P. 1011. Section 36-1041, A.R.S., states that: A strict construction of this statute would permit the forfeiture of a vehicle if some one placed narcotics in it, without the knowledge of the owner, while it was parked in a parking lot. Such a construction would in effect make the statute unreasonable and arbitrary, and not within the intent of the legislature. The trend in more recent decisions has been to hold that the object of the forfeiture of a vehicle is punishment. We do not believe it was the intent of the legislature to penalize an innocent person for an offense which he did not commit, or for which he did not intend to permit his automobile to be used, or have knowledge that it would be so used. This Court, in State v. Locks, supra, determined the necessity for knowledge and scienter in construing our obscenity laws, and stated: We accordingly hold that an automobile may not be forfeited under § 36-1041, A.R.S. et seq., unless the owner had some connection with the unlawful act, or intended to permit the automobile to be used by a third person in the commission of the unlawful act, or had knowledge it was to be so used. This is in line with the trend of the more recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the protection of constitutional rights, both of person and property. In the instant case the evidence is uncontradicted that the use of the automobile for transportation was at the instance and request of the narcotics agent that the mother, the owner, had permitted the 17-year-old son to use the automobile for the purpose of going to and from school *301 and the library. There is no evidence circumstantial or otherwise that she had any knowledge or reason to believe that the boy would use the automobile for an illegal purpose, in violation of § 36-1041, A.R.S. that she had utmost confidence in her son, and believed him to be of good moral character that the narcotics agent had never indicated to her anything which would arouse her suspicions to the contrary. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the judgment of the Superior Court denying forfeiture is affirmed. I wish to make it plain why I am in agreement with Justice McFarland in the disposition of this case. A.R.S. § 36-1041 et seq. superficially purports to confiscate the property of the innocent because of the criminal acts of others. It is penal in nature since it punishes those who, without more, permit others to use their property. Those authorities which support the proposition that an owner's interest in a vehicle may be forfeited without criminal knowledge or design enunciate a doctrine which, in my opinion, is incompatible with the mobile civilization that we live in today. This statute should not be construed to punish acts "which completely innocent and well meaning people may do." See State v. Cutshaw, 7 Ariz. App. 210, 437 P.2d 962. HAYS, Justice (dissenting). I dissent. The legislature of our state has manifested a firm intention to curb in every way possible the evils of illicit narcotic traffic. In their wisdom they invoked the time honored device of forfeiture as a deterrent to all who knowingly or unknowingly came within the ambit of this illegal field. Justice Traynor said in People v. One 1948 Chevrolet Convertible Coupe, 45 Cal. 2d 613, 616, 290 P.2d 538, 541, 55 A.L.R.2d 1272 (1955): "The purpose of the statutes is to curb the narcotic traffic, and `the public interest to be protected against the drug and its victims outweighs the loss suffered by those whose confidence in others proves to be misplaced.' People v. One 1941 Ford 8 Stake Truck, 26 Cal. 2d 503, 508, 159 P.2d 641, 643." On June 6, 1967 the California legislature repealed the motor vehicle forfeiture statute. 1967 Statutes and Amendments to the Codes, Calif., Ch. 280. Legislative action is the appropriate manner under law to correct any deficiencies or harshness which may exist in our Arizona statute. We should not be heard to complain of the public disfavor which falls on our courts if we depart from the path of precedent to invade legislative fields. [1] 2. SEIZURE OF VEHICLES USED IN NARCOTICS VIOLATIONS § 36-1041. Forfeiture of vehicle The interest of the legal owner or owners of record of any vehicle used to transport unlawfully a narcotic drug, or in which a narcotic drug is unlawfully kept, deposited or concealed, or in which a narcotic is unlawfully possessed by an occupant, shall be forfeited to the state. § 36-1042. Seizure and delivery of vehicle Any peace officer making or attempting to make an arrest for a violation of article 1 of this chapter shall seize the vehicle used to transport unlawfully a narcotic drug, or in which a narcotic drug is unlawfully kept, deposited or concealed, or unlawfully possessed by an occupant, and shall immediately deliver the vehicle to the sheriff of the county in which the seizure is made, to be held as evidence until forfeiture is declared or release ordered. § 36-1043. Notice of seizure A peace officer who seizes a vehicle under the provisions of this article shall file a notice of the seizure and intention to institute forfeiture proceedings with the county clerk of the county in which the seizure occurs, and the clerk shall serve notice thereof on all owners or claimants of the vehicle, by one of the following methods: 1. Upon an owner or claimant whose right, title or interest is of record in the division of motor vehicles, by mailing a copy of the notice by registered mail to the address on the records of the division. 2. Upon an owner or claimant whose name and address are known, by mailing a copy of the notice by registered mail to his last known address. 3. Upon an owner or claimant, whose address is unknown but who is believed to have an interest in the vehicle, by publication in one issue of a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the seizure occurred, or if there is no such newspaper, then by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Maricopa county. § 36-1044. Time for filing answer Within twenty days after the mailing or publication of a notice of seizure, as provided by § 36-1043, the owner of the seized vehicle may file a verified answer to the allegation of the use of the vehicle contained in the notice of seizure and of the intended forfeiture proceedings. No extension of time shall be granted for the purpose of filing the answer. § 36-1045. Proceedings A. If a verified answer to the notice given as prescribed by this article is not filed within twenty days after the mailing or publication thereof, the court shall hear evidence upon the charge of unlawful use of the vehicle, and upon motion shall order the vehicle forfeited to the state. B. If a verified answer is filed, the forfeiture proceedings shall be set for hearing on a day not less than thirty days after the answer is filed, and the proceedings shall have priority over other civil cases. Notice of the hearing shall be given in the manner provided for service of the notice of seizure. C. At the hearing any owner or claimant who has a verified answer on file may show by competent evidence that the vehicle was not used to transport narcotic drugs illegally, or that narcotic drugs were not unlawfully possessed by an occupant of the vehicle, nor the vehicle used as a depository or place of concealment for narcotic drugs. D. A claimant of any right, title or interest in the vehicle may prove his lien, mortgage or conditional sales contract to be bona fide, and that his right, title or interest was created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser, and without knowledge that the vehicle was being, or was to be used for the purpose charged, but no person who has a lien dependent upon possession for the compensation to which he is legally entitled for making repairs or performing labor upon and furnishing supplies or materials, for, and for the storage, repair or safekeeping of any vehicle, and no person doing business under any law of the state or the United States relating to banks, trust companies, building and loan associations, and loan companies, credit unions, or licensed pawnbrokers or money lenders or regularly engaged in the business of selling vehicles or of purchasing conditional sales contracts on vehicles shall be required to prove that his right, title or interest was created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the owner, purchaser, or person in possession of the vehicle when it was brought to the claimant. § 36-1046. Disposal of vehicle A. If proper proof is presented at the hearing, the court shall order the vehicle released to the bona fide owner, lien holder, mortgagee or vendor if the amount due him is equal to, or in excess of, the value of the vehicle as of the date of seizure, it being the purpose of this article to forfeit only the right, title or interest of the purchaser. B. If the amount due the claimant is less than the value of the vehicle, the vehicle shall be sold at public auction by the sheriff of the county in which the seizure was made, in the same manner provided by law for the sale of chattels under execution.