The Concord Police Department learned through a confidential informant that the Defendant had been distributing crack cocaine, along with the date, place, and time of a meeting at which a drug related transaction would occur. The Defendant came to the meeting in the subject automobile, and was arrested in possession of a significant quantity of illegal drugs.
The Defendant was ultimately prosecuted in federal court, and pled guilty to drug offenses. The Concord Police Department sought forfeiture of the automobile used to travel to the meeting in an unrelated proceeding in the superior court. The Defendant contested the loss of the automobile, and appealed the superior court order granting the forfeiture.
On appeal, the Supreme Court found nothing in the state statute, or in federal law to preclude the separate forfeiture proceeding. The Defendant argued that the separate proceeding violated the federal constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy for a criminal offense. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding forfeiture to be a “civil and non-punitive statute.” As a civil matter, it was not covered in the Defendant’s federal plea agreement, and thus the municipality was free to seek this relief.
Finally, the defendant argued that the loss of a $10,000 automobile was excessive for proposed sales of $4,000 in drugs. In light of the state’s investigation costs of $6,000 in the entire matter, the court found the forfeiture to be reasonable in light of the underlying crime.