 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. One Blue Corvette6/28/1999
new process, however, is accompanied by significant restrictions on the circumstances under which forfeiture can be ordered. The revisions represent a conscious legislative decision to trade the previously expansive opportunities for the State to seek forfeiture for certainty and clarity in the enforcement of forfeiture motions.
In order to obtain forfeiture of a vehicle under the revised statute, the State is required to prove the following facts: first, that the defendant has been convicted of OUI; second, that the defendant has been convicted for a simultaneous offense of operating after suspension when the underlying suspension resulted from a previous OUI conviction; and third, that the defendant was the sole owner of the vehicle he was operating at the time of the events giving rise to those convictions. See 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2421(1).
Once the State has proved each of those facts, the court is required to order the forfeiture, unless the elements of the final paragraph of section 2421(1) are satisfied by another person. That person would be required to demonstrate that she is entitled to possess the vehicle (not that she is an "owner" of the vehicle) and that her possessory rights allow her to exclude the owner-defendant from possession. The provisions regarding third parties with exclusive possessory interests in the vehicle do not modify or change the meaning of the term "sole owner-operator" in paragraph A. Rather, they merely allow third parties with exclusive rights to the vehicle to prevent the forfeiture.
Although Audette had been convicted of both applicable crimes and there was no dispute that he had been operating the Corvette in the commission of those crimes, the court specifically determined that he was not the sole owner of the Corvette. The State therefore failed to prove an element necessary for forfeiture: that Audette was the "sole owner-operator" of the Corvette. The court was not required to determine whether Diana's interest allowed her to exclude Charles from possession of the Corvette. The fact that Charles owned the Corvette jointly with Diana precluded forfeiture.
In sum, the Legislature, in an effort to strengthen and streamline the process for forfeiture of vehicles used by repeat OUI offenders, limited the court's authority to order forfeiture to those vehicles owned solely by the impaired driver. The Corvette at issue here was owned jointly by Diana and Charles Audette. Accordingly, the court erred when it granted the State's motion for forfeiture of the jointly owned Corvette.
The entry is: Judgment of forfeiture vacated.
Page 1 2 3 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|