The safety of the people
shall be the highest law.
Marcus Tullius Cicero
www.stritmatter.com | Seattle 206.448.1777 | Hoquiam 360.533.2710
real jus�ce for real people
Todd Moothart v. State of Washington
Jury verdict in favor of motorcyclist holding
State accountable for unsafe highway.
THE DECISION TO FORFEIT
The hearing examiner entered an order
of forfeiture setting forth six findings
in support:
1. Mr. Gonzalez had two cell phones in
his possession;
2. Cocaine was found in the vehicle;
3. There was a large amount of cash in
the vehicle, to wit $5,490.00;
4. Officers testified that the cash was
"coated" by enough cocaine so that
the drug dog also alerted to the cash;
5. The vehicle, a 2001 BMW, was not
in the name of the claimant at the
time of the incident; however, he had
driven it from California just prior to
being stopped;
6. The fact that the Claimant, Mr. Gonzalez, states he received money from an
injury and from unemployment does
not seem to explain all of the cash that
was present.
Id. at 606.
On the basis of these findings, the
hearing examiner concluded the city
had met its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the car
and money were "used and/or intended
to be used for a controlled substance
violation, specifically the furtherance of
the sale of an illegal drug." Id.
SUPERIOR COURT REVERSAL
The Yakima County Superior Court
reversed. It concluded "looking at the
findings, even considering them as a
whole, I don't think that a reasonable
person could find that the money and
the vehicle were involved somehow
in narcotics trafficking based on the
record we have." Id.
COURT OF APPEALS REINSTATES
FORFEITURE
The City appealed to Division III of the
Court of Appeals. That court reversed
the Superior Court and reinstated the
forfeiture. Division III believed the
Superior Court had improperly re-
weighed the evidence in reaching its
decision. Id. at 607.
SUPREME COURT VACATES FORFEITURE
WITH NO REMAND
The Supreme Court began by noting
that the intent of the forfeiture statute
is to penalize drug-related crimes by
targeting profits generated by commercial production and distribution
of controlled substances; the statute
does not contemplate forfeiture where
the drug violation is mere possession
of a controlled substance. Property
subject to seizure and forfeiture must
usually involve drug manufacturing or
transactions. Id. at 608. The essential
questions on review are: ( 1) Is there
substantial evidence in the forfeiture
hearing record to support the findings;
