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.
Source: 
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle v. Snohomish Drug Task Force (Supreme Court, State of Washington, 9/3/2009)
“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.
I wonder why our US Supreme Court has so much trouble with this same concept when it comes to interpreting the Constitution?
“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.”
And this person is a judge???!!!!
A legal deconstructionist.
If she really thinks words have no inherent or fixed meanings, watch what happens when she gets shorted on her paycheck. Or, even better, watch her reaction when some male calls her the C word.
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 as valuable collector’s car it would generate more revenue for the state and she’s paid out of state revenue.
Fixed it for you.
When have people who see themselves as benefiting from state seizure of private property ever opposed that seizure?
Drug related seizure and forfeiture laws are so clearly a dodge to get around the Fourth Amendment property protection that they are literally not funny.
That “civil procedures” are deliberately used to avoid constitutional protections in criminal matters is just plain offensive.
The founding fathers would be appalled.
We are now ruled by public employees, not laws.
Judges like Madsen only like the “words have flexible meaning” theory of the law when they are in power.
By their twisted logic, a future court could declare, for example, that Roe v Wade, has a meaning opposite to what it originally stated.
Funny, how their cherished legal rulings are always referred to as “landmark” and “protections” but they dismiss other precedents as outdated or ambiguous.
Ronnie Schreiber:
“Fixed it for you.”
Exactly what I was thinking.
I’m pretty sympathetic to your line of reasoning, but in cases where the car is clearly owned by a drug dealer (his is the only name on the title) and it has obviously been used to ferry drugs about, I think seizure is warranted. Now, if the car was stolen or titled to someone else, that’s another matter entirely. Get it back to the person whose name appears on the title.
In no way should the state be questioning how much the rightful owner “should have known” about the use their car was seeing– even if it is your kid. If Junior borrows the family Suburban and uses it to go harvest marijuana, why should mom and dad be forced to give up their ride when he gets pulled over and the cops discover his stash of wacky weed? They shouldn’t.
There’s a Bible passage about the son not suffering because of the iniquities of the father. By that same token, neither should the father suffer for the iniquities of the son, in cases like these.
in cases where the car is clearly owned by a drug dealer (his is the only name on the title) and it has obviously been used to ferry drugs about, I think seizure is warranted
I would re-state it this way: If the car was purchased from the proceeds of criminal activity, it should be confiscated as a punishment for a crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of his peers.
“Civil procedures” should be torn out of every lawbook where they are used by the state against a citizen (they only make sense for citizen v. citizen conflicts).
Every teenager in Washington should be happy with this decision. If the dissent had held, I can’t imagine when any parent would let their kid borrow their car.
By contrast, now it seems clearly better for a drug-dealer to borrow his parents’ car whenever possible.
windswords and Ronnie Schreiber:
The meaning of words change over time. A lot of law offices that deal with contracts will have an entire library of dictionaries just to try and figure out what a contract really means.
Banger:
I’m pretty sympathetic to your line of reasoning, but in cases where the car is clearly owned by a drug dealer (his is the only name on the title) and it has obviously been used to ferry drugs about, I think seizure is warranted. Now, if the car was stolen or titled to someone else, that’s another matter entirely. Get it back to the person whose name appears on the title.
Try to write up your suggestion in a manner that leaves absolutely no ambiguity under any circumstance at all. It is extremely difficult and probably impossible. “clearly owned” and “obviously been used” are incredibly ambiguous statements that require somebody to JUDGE their meaning.
Your local bar association will publish judicial ratings prior to every election. Here in Chicago we have a lot of judges that are utterly unqualified for their job yet still get elected again and again because too many people don’t care enough to review their work or they believe that if you get charged with a crime you must be guilty of something and deserve whatever treatment you get in the courtroom. But even the qualified and dedicated judges are in a very difficult situation. Being an appellate judge is a hard job that I would never want.
PS – Appeals and Supreme Courts make rulings on individual cases. They say that in this specific case, we decide X. Sometimes they will also write out some guidelines that can be used to help interpret their decision in other cases. But they are only guidelines based upon the best knowledge available at the time of writing. If better knowledge becomes available, then those guidelines must be rethought to make sure they are still the best possible way to approach a situation.
Our laws are almost never absolute in their meaning, and that is almost always a very good thing.
Avaricious seizure laws should not be tolerated. They operate too much like the bills of attainder and corruption of blood that were banned by the Founders in the Constitution. And they put law enforcement agencies in the position enjoyed by the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood’s day: the more loot (taxes, fines) you squeeze from the citizenry, the more your get for yourself. Talk about conflicts of interest!
If you think this is scary, the federal laws on cash forfeiture will make your hair stand on end.
Basically, if you’re found by the cops with a ‘suspicious’ amount of cash (which can be anything down to a few hundred bucks) while minding your own business and not breaking any laws, it can be confiscated on suspicion that it is the proceeds of drug dealing, even in the absence of any circumstances or evidence that would support that claim. And the burden of proof is on you — you have to go to court and somehow prove that the money is legit in order to get it back.
Thanks, all you ‘War on (Some People Who Take Some Kinds of) Drugs’ gung-hos.
Chicago Dude:
“Try to write up your suggestion in a manner that leaves absolutely no ambiguity under any circumstance at all. It is extremely difficult and probably impossible. ‘clearly owned’ and ‘obviously been used’ are incredibly ambiguous statements that require somebody to JUDGE their meaning.”
If you want to get technical, “clearly owned” needs to say what I said in parentheses in my original post. If the person found guilty of selling/trafficking drugs is the same as the person the vehicle is titled to, there’s one part of the litmus test.
The second part would come from the investigation. Did the car contain drugs during a traffic stop? Can prosecutors prove to a jury that the suspect (whose name appears on the title for said car) was buying and/or selling said drugs? If yes, then the car passes both tests and should be seized. If no, then no seizure.
As you admit, you will never rid any legislation or civil code of all traces of ambiguity. That’s why we have judges and juries and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. To what extent those judges and juries are qualified for the job, and further to what extent we actually maintain the “reasonable doubt” standard, is another debate for another time.
I will, however, say I’m firmly with you on the election of judges. That represents, to me, a dangerous blurring of the line when it comes to the separation of powers.
And tech98:
“If you think this is scary, the federal laws on cash forfeiture will make your hair stand on end.”
Absolutely. When I bought my little Ford Ranger, I arranged financing outside the dealership. So the day of the transaction, I had all the cash sitting in my bank account and wanted to just cut the dealership a check and walk out the door.
“We’re going to ask you to put down a superficial deposit on it and come back in a couple days,” the sales manager informed me.
When I asked why that was necessary, he said, “Well, the government gets suspicious whenever they see a regular old John Q. Taxpayer write a check for any amount over $10,000. That throws up red flags.”
The implication being the IRS would freeze those assets while they audited the situation– if not the whole dealership and my entire financial history. Had they chosen to dive into my bank account history, I guess I could have very well had my assets frozen as well until I could prove I wasn’t involved in an elaborate money laundering/drug trafficking/your favorite illicit activity here scheme.
And not only can you thank the war on (some) drugs, you can thank the war on terrorism. As much as I want my country to be safe from terrorist attack, I’m appalled things like the Patriot Act were even considered, let alone passed and allowed (by the Supreme Court who is supposed to be watching out for our Constitutional protections) to stand uncontested.
Banger: “We’re going to ask you to put down a superficial deposit on it and come back in a couple days,” the sales manager informed me.
When I asked why that was necessary, he said, “Well, the government gets suspicious whenever they see a regular old John Q. Taxpayer write a check for any amount over $10,000. That throws up red flags.”
Monitoring all checks over $10K written by “regular” people would overload the gummint. I think the sales manager was confusing your intended transaction with those involving cash. Transfers over $10K in cash are to be reported to the IRS. The idea is to inhibit large-scale money laundering, drug dealing and such.
In large amounts, cash becomes a nuisance due to the weight and bulk, even in hundred-dollar bills. But in traditional cultures, checks are still regarded warily and lots of currency has to be lugged around. When my brother was in Saudi Arabia in the 80’s, to handle the payroll he’d draw a million-plus in cash from the bank and tote two large suitcases full of currency down the street. For just everyday sums of walking around money, the banks provided plastic bags much like you’d get at Target.
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.
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.