Com. v. Black 2009 Ford Mustang Re: J.J. Keller
125 A.3d 493
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Undercover Officer Bruckhart bought pills from Jon Keller, who later agreed to sell two "eight balls" of cocaine for $400. Keller drove a 2009 Ford Mustang to both meetings.
- At the second meeting, Keller insisted on receiving $400 but agreed to take $200 and leave the Mustang keys as collateral so he would return with the cocaine. Keller left, did not return with the promised cocaine, and was arrested when he later came back on foot; the Mustang contained knives and paraphernalia but no cocaine.
- The Commonwealth filed a civil forfeiture petition under the Controlled Substances Forfeiture Act seeking the Mustang. The trial court found the vehicle was used as collateral and therefore facilitated the drug transaction, ordering forfeiture.
- Keller appealed, arguing primarily that the vehicle was used as collateral only at the insistence of the undercover officer (a claim he termed "forfeiture entrapment") and thus should not be forfeitable.
- The Commonwealth argued the officer’s request for collateral was ordinary precaution in a drug buy and not outrageous police conduct; the Forfeiture Act imposes an innocent-owner defense, not an entrapment defense.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding police conduct was not outrageous and that using the vehicle as collateral facilitated the drug transaction under the Forfeiture Act; Keller failed to establish an innocent-owner defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Mustang is forfeitable as property that "facilitated" a drug transaction under 42 Pa.C.S. §6801(a)(4) | Keller: vehicle should not be forfeited because it was used as collateral only at police suggestion | Commonwealth: vehicle facilitated the transaction by serving as collateral and was thus forfeitable | Held: Vehicle forfeitable — use as collateral facilitated the drug sale |
| Whether police-induced use of the vehicle as collateral constitutes a defense to forfeiture ("forfeiture entrapment") | Keller: officer induced him to leave keys, so police misconduct should bar forfeiture | Commonwealth: entrapment is a criminal defense; officer’s conduct was not outrageous and provided only an opportunity | Held: No forfeiture-entrapment relief; civil forfeiture focuses on innocent-owner defense, and officer conduct was not outrageous |
| Whether entrapment principles (18 Pa.C.S. §313) apply in a civil forfeiture proceeding | Keller: seeks to import entrapment doctrine to prevent forfeiture | Commonwealth: Forfeiture Act supplies innocent-owner defense; entrapment is not incorporated | Held: Entrapment not applicable to Forfeiture Act claim; even if considered, facts do not show outrageous police conduct |
| Whether control of keys (not physical car) is insufficient to forfeit the vehicle | Keller: officer only had keys, not title or legal interest, so car shouldn't be forfeited | Commonwealth: keys conferred control of the vehicle and, in context of illegal transaction, sufficed to facilitate the crime | Held: Keys amounted to control and supported forfeiture of the vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms, 690 A.2d 222 (Pa. 1997) (upheld forfeiture of property used as collateral in drug operation)
- Commonwealth v. McGuire, 488 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super. 1985) (discusses criminal entrapment doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Lucci, 662 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1995) (adopts objective approach to entrapment; focuses on police conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Zingarelli, 839 A.2d 1064 (Pa. Super. 2003) (police conduct must be outrageous or egregious to establish entrapment as a matter of law)
- Commonwealth v. $2,523.48 U.S. Currency, 649 A.2d 658 (Pa. 1994) (preponderance standard and nexus requirement for forfeiture under the Forfeiture Act)