 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE v. SKAGEN6/21/1996
:
[The defendant's] failure to file a petition for remission or mitigation . . . reveals that, even when he had the opportunity to challenge . . . the forfeiture and assert his interest, he weighed the worth of asserting a claim against any risks associated with doing so and ultimately decided not to assert a claim of ownership.
Castro, 78 F.3d at 457.
Skagen, like the defendant in Castro, asserts that he is the owner of the forfeited property, but he has done nothing to pursue this asserted ownership interest. The cases unanimously hold that the default forfeiture of the unclaimed vehicle did not inflict a punishment on Skagen.
Skagen's double jeopardy claim will not be ripe until such time, if any, as Skagen chooses to assert an interest in the vehicle and succeeds in re-opening the forfeiture proceeding. If, at that time, judgement has already been entered against Skagen on either or both of the criminal charges, Skagen would have an arguable double jeopardy defense to the forfeiture. If, on the other hand, the forfeiture action is re-opened, Skagen unsuccessfully contests the forfeiture, and the forfeiture is re-imposed before judgement is entered against Skagen on the criminal charges, then Skagen would have an arguable double jeopardy defense to any continuation of the criminal charges.
These potential future scenarios have no bearing on our resolution of the present case. As things currently stand, Skagen's vehicle was forfeited by default after Skagen failed to assert an interest in it, and Skagen has yet to take any action to seek a re-opening of the forfeiture proceeding. Under these facts, Skagen must be deemed to have abandoned his interest in the vehicle, and the default forfeiture of that vehicle did not inflict any punishment on him. Moreover, Skagen has not been tried on the criminal charges. Thus, Skagen has not yet been subjected to any punishment, much less double punishment,
for his alleged acts of driving while intoxicated and refusing the breath test.
We therefore REVERSE the district court's dismissal of the breath-test refusal charge, and we AFFIRM the district court's refusal to dismiss the driving while intoxicated charge. We remand Skagen's case to the district court for further proceedings on these two criminal charges.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|