Pubdate: Fri, 22 Aug 2003
Source: Skagit Valley Herald (WA)
Copyright: 2003 Skagit Valley Herald
Contact:  http://www.skagitvalleyherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1582
Author: Marta Murvosh

SEIZED CAR DRIVES LEGAL DISPUTE

Case Illustrates How Arcane Matters Of Law Can Snowball

When a judge told a police drug task force to return 80-year-old Lillian 
Dalton's Acura, she thought all she had to do was pick it up.

But before she could get her car, it took two rulings from a judge and cost 
Skagit County $4,210 in fees because lawyers squabbled over how the case 
should have been handled.

They just might continue the argument, even though Dalton now has her car.

The case of how an elderly woman got her car back offers a glimpse into the 
arcane world of law, where sometimes well-meaning people can get caught up 
in a drawn-out dispute over seemingly minor issues of procedure.

In fact, the case had little to do with whether Dalton should get her car 
again. Instead, the argument was over how she should ask.

Dalton's car was seized in September 2002 when her grandniece was arrested 
on charges of dealing drugs.

Drug task force investigators believed the niece, Lisa Dalton, used the 
Acura to make the alleged deals, according to court documents. As a result, 
they confiscated the car under state laws allowing police to seize property 
in drug cases without having to wait for the people involved to be convicted.

Initially, Deputy Skagit County Prosecutor Gene Willett, who represents the 
task force, had questioned returning the car. Although the car was 
registered to Lillian Dalton, police believed the Acura was Lisa Dalton's 
in all but name.

"There were girlie stickers on the car, all the grandniece's stuff and 
nothing that was Lillian's, and Lillian has other cars," Willett said.

Still, Lillian Dalton owned the car, and she wanted it back.

State law directs people who are appealing forfeitures to make their case 
in a civil process that begins with an administrative hearing.

The hearing involves an examiner, typically a prosecutor who has been 
appointed by the task force. The examiner decides whether the property was 
used in the alleged drug deal and whether the owner was involved.

The task force rarely holds forfeiture hearings. Just one or two of the 25 
to 30 forfeitures made each year are contested.

Most of the task force's forfeiture cases are resolved through the county 
prosecutor's office, said Sedro-Woolley Prosecutor Pat Hayden, who is the 
task force's hearing examiner. But he didn't preside over Dalton's case 
because she never had a hearing.

Willett said he didn't have time to schedule a hearing on the forfeiture. 
So Lillian Dalton and her lawyer, Corbin Volluz of Mount Vernon, took the 
case to Skagit County District Court so she could get her car back.

It was the method Volluz used to make that move that disturbed the prosecution.

Willett focused on the procedural issue of how the case was moved from an 
administrative hearing to a courtroom.

He said the case should have moved by filing a "complaint." That legal 
action is similar to filing a civil lawsuit and in recent years contested 
seizures have been handled in that way.

Instead, Volluz filed a different type of legal action, called a "motion."

It was a strategic move for his client, Volluz said.

Had he filed a complaint as Willett wished, he worried that Dalton could be 
put in a position of having to prove her case. By filing a motion, he 
forced the prosecutors to prove theirs.

That prompted another legal loggerhead.

Under state law, Volluz said, the task force had 90 days to hold a hearing 
or return the car.

Willett disagreed, saying the task force had 90 days to "commence the 
proceeding" such as sending a letter to Lillian Dalton.

Meanwhile, Lisa Dalton had entered drug court. Prosecutors typically wait 
until a person has successfully completed the program, including drug 
treatment, before disposing of the seized property.

Ultimately, the task force never set a hearing date on the seized car. So 
in January, District Court Judge David Svaren ordered the return of the 
Acura because the 90-day limit had elapsed.

But Dalton's car wasn't immediately returned.

Three times, she asked the drug task force for her car. She was denied each 
time.

Dalton returned to court and once again Svaren told the task force to 
return the car. He did, and ordered the drug task force to pay $2,710 in 
her lawyer fees. The task force complied and returned the car. But Willett 
believed an important principle was at stake, and appealed Svaren's ruling 
to Skagit County Superior Court. He was concerned the method Volluz used 
could make it easier for accused drug dealers in future cases to retrieve 
property.

On Aug. 14, Superior Court Judge Michael Rickert agreed with Svaren. By 
then, lawyer fees had grown to $4,210.

"What I fought really hard was the court was not doing it correctly," 
Willett said. "By not having it done correctly, it tipped the whole thing 
on its side."

Said Volluz: "It appears a district court judge and a superior court judge 
didn't think there was a big issue here."

That money will come from cash seized by the task force in other drug 
cases, unless Willett decides to take the matter before the state Court of 
Appeals. He has about a month to decide.

"He better not. I'm getting sick of it," Dalton said. "I'm just a nervous 
wreck."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart