Opinion ID: 1702798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: One 1980 Ford Pick-up Truck

Text: Defendant Godwin challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the trial court ordered his pick-up truck condemned and forfeited. Godwin's truck was seized the night arrests were made at the Ricky G. Testimony at trial established that in the early evening, Godwin's truck was parked approximately two hundred yards from the Ricky G. Before the arrests were made, the Ricky G. was moved and came to rest four hundred yards from the defendant's truck. When the Sheriff's Department moved in to effect the arrests, some of the suspects ran toward Godwin's truck. No marijuana was found on or near the truck, nor was the truck seen transporting any. Over defendant's objections alleged hearsay testimony was admitted at trial to the effect that four of the suspects arrived at the scene in Godwin's pick-up. It is the state's contention that the evidence was sufficient to show that the vehicle was used in some manner to facilitate the transportation of the marijuana. We disagree. The applicable statute provides: (a) The following are subject to forfeiture: (1) All controlled substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed or acquired in violation of this chapter; (2) All raw materials, products and equipment of any kind which are used or intended for use in manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing or exporting any controlled substance in violation of this chapter; (3) All property which is used or intended for use as a container for property described in subdivisions (1) or (2) of this subsection; (4) All conveyances, including aircraft vehicles or vessels, which are used or intended for use to transport or in any manner to facilitate the transportation for the purpose of sale or receipt of property described in subdivisions (1) or (2) of this subsection; ... Code 1975, § 20-2-93(a)(1-4). In Reeder v. State, 294 Ala. 260, 314 So.2d 853 (1975), this court stated that forfeiture statutes, because of their penal nature, are subject to strict construction. This court declined to liberally interpret the predecessor of the instant statute to allow the seizure and forfeiture of money. Jackson v. Evans, 379 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1979). Recently, in Singleton v. State, 396 So.2d 1050 (Ala.1981), we observed that a vehicle need not be loaded with drugs for transportation before it could be subject to forfeiture. In Singleton, we upheld forfeiture where the facts showed that the truck had backed up to the cargo door of an airplane that was carrying marijuana. There, the facts established that the truck was intended for use in the transporting of marijuana. The facts in Singleton are dissimilar to those of the instant case. Here, the facts show only that the seized pick-up truck was used to transport individuals involved with the marijuana to the scene. We do not believe that is enough to sustain a forfeiture of the vehicle, nor do we believe that such a use comes within the language of the forfeiture statute. We thus pretermit discussion of the other issues raised by the defendant and hold that the trial court was in error when it ordered the forfeiture and condemnation of the truck. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, reversed as to the proceedings against both the Ricky G. and the 1980 Ford pick-up truck, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to order the release of them to their owners. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.