 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fred's Tire Co., Inc. v. 2002 Chevrolet Silverado11/30/2004
Appellant Fred's Tire Co. Inc. challenges the judgment ordering the forfeiture of respondent 2002 Chevrolet Silverado, VIN # 1GCEK 19T322276318, MN Plate JKG611, to Washington County under Minn.Stat. § 169A.63 (2002). Fred's Tire argues the district court misinterpreted the forfeiture statute and also erroneously found that Fred's Tire knew or should have known of the illegal use of its vehicle. We affirm.
FACTS
Shortly after midnight on May 27, 2003, Frank Macalus (Macalus) was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. He later pleaded guilty to the offense. This was his fourth alcohol-related driving offense. At the time of his current arrest, he was driving a 2002 Chevrolet Silverado owned by Fred's Tire. Following the arrest, Washington County authorities seized the vehicle because Macalus's conviction was a "designated offense" under Minn.Stat. § 169A.63 (2002).
Fred's Tire filed a petition in district court seeking return of the vehicle, claiming it was an innocent owner pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d). At a hearing on the petition, Fred Macalus, Sr. testified that Fred's Tire is a family owned and operated business with four locations in the metro area, that he is the sole owner, and that he is not actively involved in day-to-day operation, "letting the family run it." He also testified that each of the company's four stores is managed by one of his five children or their spouses; Macalus and his brother Tommy Macalus share the management duties of the store located in Forest Lake.
Frank Macalus testified that on May 26, 2003, he went to the store and picked up the 2002 Silverado and drove it away. He did not ask his father for permission to use the company vehicle. He testified that, based on the company's policy instituted in February 2002, he did not have a right to take the 2002 Silverado for his personal use. He further testified that under this new company policy company trucks were "not to be driven for personal use" but store managers were allowed to drive the truck home if the manager was "working with some delivering or something to do with business, where it works out best."
At the hearing Fred's Tire stipulated that statements from Macalus's neighbors contained in a police report were accurate and the report was admitted into evidence. The report stated that a neighbor across the street recognized a picture of the 2002 Silverado "as the vehicle that Macalus drove on a regular daily basis." Another neighbor stated that he recognized the picture as the truck Macalus had driven for the last year and that Macalus "drove the vehicle on a daily basis."
Washington County presented evidence showing that approximately 24,400 miles were put on the 2002 Silverado in one year. Macalus testified that other than an occasional use by his girlfriend while she still worked for Fred's Tire, he was the only employee at the Forest Lake store who drove the vehicle. He also testified that Fred Macalus, Sr. took the vehicle approximately once a month to haul his boat or supplies to the family's cabin in Wisconsin. Fred Macalus, Sr. testified he also took the truck "a couple times" but did not know how many miles he had driven it.
*2 Macalus was also questioned about his alcohol use and prior driving under the influence convictions. He testified that he was driving company trucks at the time of both his 1999 conviction and his 1993 conviction. Further, as a result of his 1999 DWI conviction, the state impounded the license plates of the company truck he was driving and his driving privileges were suspended for 90 days. He testified that the company "applied [to the state] through the office and got new plates."
The district court found that Macalus has a significant history of drunk driving and alcohol
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|