Detona Sargent v. State of Ind., and the Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion Co., and the Indianapolis Metro Police Dept
2015 Ind. LEXIS 232
| Ind. | 2015Background
- State sued for forfeiture of Detona Sargent’s 1996 Buick Century under Indiana’s Civil Forfeiture Statute, I.C. 34-24-1-1(a), alleging the vehicle was used or intended to facilitate transportation of stolen property valued at $100+.
- Sargent stole four iPhones from Wal-Mart on Sept. 16, 2011; the phones were valued around $1,200.
- Sargent was detained on-site, the car was towed, and she later pled guilty to theft (Class D felony) under a separate agreement.
- The trial court granted the State’s summary-judgment motion for forfeiture and denied Sargent’s cross-motion; Court of Appeals affirmed, then the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding Sargent neither had actual nor constructive possession of the Buick at the relevant times; the case was remanded for entry of summary judgment in Sargent’s favor; the Court did not resolve the exemption issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sargent possessed the Buick Century under the statute | State asserted possession via statutory requirement of ownership/control | Sargent contended no possession, actual or constructive, at relevant times | No possession, so no forfeiture under I.C. 34-24-1-1(a) |
| Whether the Buick was linked to the theft via nexus | State argued the car was used or intended to transport stolen iPhones | Sargent argued no nexus since possession failings impede forfeiture | Nexus argument insufficient where possession is lacking |
| Whether the Buick is exempt from forfeiture under the Indiana Constitution Art. 1, § 22 or I.C. § 34-55-10-2 | State did not concede exemption | Sargent argued exemption applies to eight-thousand-dollar cap | Court declined to decide on exemption, resolving case on possession grounds instead |
Key Cases Cited
- Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. 2004) (possession can be actual or constructive)
- Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2011) (constructive possession requires capability and intent)
- Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. 1997) (constructive possession framework)
- Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4 (Ind. 1999) (possession analysis for forfeiture)