Antonio Crawford v. Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force
34755-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force seized $80,948.17 from Crawford’s bank accounts and $25,000 from his safe deposit box after an investigation tying him to oxycodone distribution (controlled buy, informant and cooperating witnesses, GPS and surveillance, prior drug convictions).
- Crawford had multiple local bank/credit-union accounts; Task Force forensic accounting showed large unexplained cash deposits inconsistent with his disclosed employment income and tax returns.
- Witnesses (the buyer Pardun, seller Lawler, and a drug mule Delcambre) tied Crawford to supplying oxycodone and transporting pills from California; surveillance corroborated meetings and airport trips.
- Crawford claimed the seized funds came from legitimate sources (employment, school loans, tax refunds, sale of real estate, gifts/loans); the hearing examiner found Crawford’s business was fictitious and much of the money unexplained or commingled with illicit proceeds.
- The hearing examiner ordered forfeiture under RCW 69.50.505(1)(g); the superior court affirmed; Crawford appealed arguing insufficient evidence and improper burden-shifting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for forfeiture under RCW 69.50.505(1)(g) | Crawford: findings not supported by substantial evidence; unexplained cash alone insufficient to show money was proceeds or intended to facilitate drug crimes. | Task Force: circumstantial evidence (controlled buy, witness testimony, surveillance, prior convictions, forensic accounting, unexplained deposits) supports inference funds were drug proceeds or used to facilitate trafficking. | Affirmed — substantial circumstantial evidence supported the examiner’s finding that seized funds met one or more statutory forfeiture categories. |
| Burden of proof allocation | Crawford: examiner impermissibly shifted burden to him to prove funds legitimate. | Task Force: agency met its preponderance burden by showing funds were unexplained and linked to trafficking; requiring disclosure in discovery is not burden-shifting. | Affirmed — court held Task Force met its burden by preponderance; examiner did not improperly shift burden. |
| Treatment of commingled assets (sale proceeds of home) | Crawford: proceeds from sale of home were legitimate and not forfeitable. | Task Force: home purchase used commingled funds from past drug sales, so proceeds traceable to illicit proceeds and forfeitable. | Affirmed — examiner reasonably found home proceeds traceable in part to drug proceeds and therefore forfeitable. |
| Standard of review / deference to hearing examiner | Crawford: challenges factual findings and legal application. | Task Force: factual findings entitled to deference; legal application reviewed de novo. | Affirmed — appellate court reviewed facts for substantial evidence and law de novo, upholding examiner’s ultimate factual findings and legal application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez, 188 Wn.2d 600 (Wash. 2017) (explains standards for forfeiture and limits of circumstantial proof where evidence did not link assets to drug transactions)
- City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 136 Wn.2d 38 (Wash. 1998) (explains de novo review for questions of law in administrative appeals)
- Sam v. Okanogan County Sheriff's Office, 136 Wn. App. 220 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (agency may meet forfeiture burden with direct or circumstantial evidence)
- Willener v. Sweeting, 107 Wn.2d 388 (Wash. 1986) (on characterizing findings of fact vs. conclusions of law)
- Inland Foundry Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 106 Wn. App. 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (distinguishing factual findings about existence of events from legal conclusions)
- State v. Jackson, 145 Wn. App. 814 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (defines circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from it)