ILNews

Justices reverse forfeiture of truck

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court agreed with the lower appellate court that a man’s truck shouldn’t have been lost in a civil forfeiture action because the state didn’t prove any substantial connection between the truck and the commission of a crime.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard kicked off the unanimous opinion describing civil forfeiture as “a devise, a legal fiction, authorizing legal action against inanimate objects for participating in alleged criminal activity, regardless of whether the property owner is proven guilty of the crime – or even charged with a crime.” He delved into the roots of the action, in rem forfeiture, that go back to maritime law, and he also explained how civil forfeitures play a role in funding the state’s common school fund.

Out of those funds, the court may allow for law enforcement and the prosecutor to recoup expenses incurred related to the seizure, as well as expenses related to the criminal prosecution. Whether this process is in agreement with what the Indiana Constitution says regarding all forfeitures going into the common school fund is “an unresolved question,” the chief justice noted.

Currently, the Indiana General Assembly is debating Senate Bill 215, which would specify how much of forfeiture funds may go to sources outside of the school fund. A lawsuit was filed in August 2010 in Marion County against 78 prosecutors alleging they violated the law by not turning over seized assets from criminals to the common school fund. It was dismissed earlier this month.

In Martin Serrano v. State of Indiana and the City of Fort Wayne, No. 02S03-1104-CV-241, the justices focused on the first ground for forfeiture under Indiana Code 34-24-1-2 – “if the seizure is incident to lawful arrest, search, or administrative inspection” when examining Martin Serrano’s case. Serrano lost his truck in a forfeiture action based on the presence of cocaine residue found in the carpet of his truck and on a box of $500 in quarters. Police received an anonymous tip that the grocery store where he worked was receiving drug shipments from Chicago. Police pulled over Serrano’s truck after it left the grocery store because he was speeding and they thought he had an outstanding warrant.

While in custody, a canine officer alerted officers to the presence of narcotics and the truck was towed. Serrano was later released because the warrant was for a different Martin Serrano. But police got a search warrant for the truck the next day and found the drug residue in the car. Serrano admitted to using drugs and said he was the only person who drove the truck. Police also conducted trash pulls at Serrano’s home recovering bank receipts trying to prove he was making more money than he claimed and was involved in drug trade.

The trial court granted the state’s complaint for forfeiture of the truck. But this was an error, the justices concluded, because the state failed to prove that the truck was used or intended for use by Serrano to transport cocaine. Chief Justice Shepard cited Katner v. State, 655 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. 1995), in which the high court held that to sustain a forfeiture, the state must demonstrate that the property sought was used in one of the enumerated offenses under the statute.

“… the State’s evidence does not compel a conclusion that the presence of cocaine was anything more than ‘incidental or fortuitous,’” wrote the chief justice in reference to Katner. “The State presented no evidence or link to any drug transactions or trade other than the initial information from an anonymous informant that the grocery store was receiving large shipments of drugs. Serrano admitted he was a cocaine user, and without expounding, it seems apparent that there are numerous ways that cocaine residue may have made its way into the truck that do not involve the use of his vehicle in furthering the possession of cocaine.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT