Summary: Craig and Pam Bickle purchased a 2011 Honda Accord for their daughter Ashley Bickle. The Honda was titled in the name of "Craige Bickle or Pam Bickle or Ashley Bickle". The Honda was pulled over by the Tulsa police department. Ashley Bickle was a passenger in the car and an unrelated third-party was driving. The police noticed the odor of marijuana and saw some marijuana in plain sight. The driver and Ashley Bickle were arrested and police found approximately one-half pound of marijuana and $804 in the car. The Tulsa police department sought to take ownership of the car through forfeiture pursuant to 63 O.S. §2-501 et seq. On a motion for summary judgment the Tulsa County Court ruled that Craig and Pam Bickle were "innocent owners" of the car, and that as such their interest in the car could not be forfeited. The district attorney for Tulsa County appealed this ruling. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the Tulsa County court.
Legal Issues: The statutory authority for forfeiture of vehicles used in drug trafficking explicitly exempts vehicles from forfeiture if the owner of the vehicle has no knowledge of the illegal activity. Specifically, 63 O.S. §2-503(A)(4)(b) states:
b. no conveyance shall be forfeited under the provisions of this section by reason of any act or omission established by the owner thereof to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of such owner, and if the act is committed by any person other than such owner the owner shall establish further that the conveyance was unlawfully in the possession of a person other than the owner in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state. . . .
The statute contemplates uniformity of knowledge among the various owner(s) of the vehicle in question. In the present case one of the title owners, Ashley Bickle, was present in the vehicle at the time of the arrest and was clearly knowledgeable of its illegal use. The Tulsa County District court found that Craig and Pam Bickle were owners of record and that they had no knowledge of the illegal use of the car, and that as such they were "innocent owners" regardless of the fact that Ashley Bickle, also listed on the title as an owner, was not an "innocent owner".
The Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that the law abhors forfeitures, meaning that statutes that call for forfeiture of a party's rights are construed narrowly. The Court further ruled that the legislature intended that no innocent owner should have their ownership forfeited by the actions of other persons. While the statute did not explicitly state that in a case of mixed innocence among joint owners, the Court ruled that an innocent co-owner cannot have their ownership rights forfeited by the actions of another party.
Discussion: Various law enforcement agencies use forfeiture of property as a tool to supplement their funding. This ruling will be of significance to future cases making it easier for innocent co-owners to defend their property rights when a co-owner uses the jointly owned property in an illegal manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment