Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-0028 MiscellaneousCOMMONWEALTH VS. LE NGUYEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-0028 MISCELLANEOUS COMMONWEALTH VS. ONE 1991 PLYMOUTH LASER, : RED, VIN: 4P3CS34T4ME066474 : ONE 1991 PLYMOUTH LASER, : BLACK, : VIN: 4P30S44R6ME150645 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · 98-0058 MISCELLANEOUS ONE PELOUZE DIGITAL SCALE · IN RE: THE PETITION OF LE NGUYEN FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY AND THE PETITION OF THE COMMONWEALTH FOR FORFEITURE BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this 2.. ~-"-a day of July, 1998, the petition of the Commonwealth for the forfeiture of one 1991 red Plymouth Laser, VIN 4P3CS34T4ME066474, is GRANTED. The petition of Le Nguyen for return of property is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Travis Gery, Esquire Sr. Assistant District Attorney Matthew Gover, Esquire For Le Nguyen A. Hess, J. COMMONWEALTH VS. LE NGUYEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-0028 MISCELLANEOUS COMMONWEALTH VS. ONE 1991 PLYMOUTH LASER, RED, VIN: 4P3CS34T4ME066474 ONE 1991 PLYMOUTH LASER, BLACK, VIN: 4P30S44R6ME150645 ONE PELOUZE DIGITAL SCALE IN RE: THE PETITION OF LE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-0058 MISCELLANEOUS NGUYEN FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY AND THE PETITION OF THE COMMONWEALTH FOR FORFEITURE BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER This case is before us on the Commonwealth's petition for forfeiture of a 1991 red Plymouth Laser, VIN 4P3CS34T4ME066474. The vehicle was seized after an arrest warrant was served on Thoai A. Nguyen and a search warrant was executed on the vehicle. The vehicle was used to facilitate the transportation, possession, concealment, and distribution of marijuana, and is therefore subject to forfeiture under 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6801 (a)(4). The vehicle registration and title are in the name of Mr. Nguyen's mother, Le Nguyen. Ms. Le Nguyen has filed a motion for return of property contending that she is an "innocent owner" under the Forfeiture Act. 98-0028 MISC. 98-0058 MISC. On October 31, 1997, Thoai A. Nguyen was arrested for possession and delivery of marijuana and cocaine after Mr. Nguyen made sales of these drugs to an undercover police officer. A search warrant was also executed on the red Plymouth Laser, and marijuana was recovered from that vehicle. According to the Stipulation of Fact filed in this matter, Mr. Nguyen did in fact use the vehicle for the transportation and delivery of marijuana. The title to the vehicle and the vehicle registration are in Le Nguyen's name as it was Ms. Le Nguyen who purchased the vehicle. Thoai, however, has had complete and exclusive use of the vehicle, and has been solely responsible for the maintenance of the car. Le has driven the vehicle on only two occasions. The Commonwealth has instituted an action pursuant to the Forfeiture Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6801. Ms. Le Nguyen claims the benefit of the following provision of the Act: (ii) no conveyanc.e 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 his knowledge or consent, which absence of knowledge or consent must be reasonable under the circumstances presented; 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6801 (a)(4)(ii). Pennsylvania's Forfeiture Act is modeled after its federal counterpart, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. Section 881(a)(4). Consequently, the courts of our Commonwealth have looked to federal cases for guidance in determining questions of ownership and, specifically, the parameters of the "innocent owner" defense under 98-0028 MISC. 98-0058 MISC. Section 6801(a)(4)(ii). See Commonwealth v. One 1985 Cadillac Seville, 371 Pa. Super. 390, 397, 538 A.2d 71, 75 (1988). In a case with facts strikingly similar to the matter sub judice, the court in Commonwealth v. One 1988 Suzuki Samurai, 139 Pa. Cmwlth. 68, 72, 589 A.2d 770, 773 (1991) noted "our review of federal cases reveals that an owner must have a possessory interest in the property with attendant characteristics of dominion and control." The court went on to conclude that it was not sufficient that one have title to a car and have paid for it to be able to claim the "innocent owner" defense. In deciding Whether property should be forfeited, the question is who has control over the property that was seized, not who paid for and has title to the property. "[H]olding title to an automobile does not, in and of itself, prove actual legal ownership for the purposes of the Forfeiture Act." Strand v. Chester Police Department, 687 A.2d 872, 876 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). For purposes of the Forfeiture Act, we conclude that the owner of the Plymouth is Thoai Nguyen. The Stipulation of Fact states that "[s]ince the purchase of the vehicle, Thoai Nguyen has had complete and exclusive use of the vehicle" and that "Thoai Nguyen was solely responsible for maintaining the car and ensuring its good operating condition. This included all necessary repairs as well as filling the tank with gasoline." In light of these factual conclusions, we will grant the Commonwealth's petition. AND NOW, this ORDER day of July, 1998, the petition of the Commonwealth 98-0028 MISC. 98-0058 MISC. for the forfeiture of one 1991 red Plymouth Laser, VIN 4P3CS34T4ME066474, is GRANTED. The petition of Le Nguyen for return of property is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Travis Gery, Esquire Sr. Assistant District Attorney Matthew Gover, Esquire For Le Nguyen :rlm Kevin ~z~Hess, J. / 4