D.A. v. State of Indiana, 58 N.E.3d 169

In 2002 police seized $1,340 during D.A.’s arrest; $620 was marked money tied to controlled buys and $720 unmarked money was later the subject of a civil forfeiture.
D.A. was convicted of two felonies (possession of cocaine and dealing in marijuana); the State separately obtained a default civil forfeiture of the $720.
In 2014 D.A. successfully petitioned to expunge records of his criminal convictions under Indiana’s revamped expungement statutes.
D.A. then filed a second petition seeking to expunge the civil forfeiture records; the trial court denied that petition as civil forfeiture records fall outside the expungement statutes.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the expungement statutes ambiguous and could reach civil forfeitures “ancillary to and premised on criminal activity for which the defendant was convicted.” The State sought transfer.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and considered whether civil forfeiture records are eligible for expungement under Indiana Code chapter 35-38-9.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether civil forfeiture records are expungeable under I.C. ch. 35-38-9	The statute’s language is ambiguous and should be read broadly to reach civil forfeitures related to convictions; expungement furthers second-chance policy	Statute plainly limits expungement to arrest, charge, delinquency, and conviction records; forfeiture actions are civil and independent of convictions	Civil forfeiture records are not expungeable under the statute; affirm trial court

Katner v. State, 655 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. 1995) (civil forfeiture actions are civil and operate independently of criminal convictions)
Serrano v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. 2011) (civil forfeiture is an action against property, not the person)
In re S.H., 984 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 2013) (statutory interpretation looks first to plain meaning of the text)
Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190 (Ind. 2016) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767 (Ind. 2016) (plain statutory language controls interpretation)
Taylor v. State, 7 N.E.3d 362 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (discussing 2014 expungement amendments)
Sales v. State, 723 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. 2000) (statutes should be applied logically to avoid absurd results)
Hardiman v. Cozmanoff, 4 N.E.3d 1148 (Ind. 2014) (criminal convictions can have civil preclusive effects)
D.A. v. State, 49 N.E.3d 580 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (Court of Appeals majority held expungement could reach forfeitures ancillary to convictions)