The City Of Seattle v. 2009 Cadillac Cts, Wa. Lic. Asu1242
76435-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- Seattle Police seized Johnny White’s 2009 Cadillac, four wheels/tires, and $1,741.86 on Feb 17–19, 2015 and mailed notices of seizure/intended forfeiture shortly after the seizures.
- White sent a written claim of ownership on March 12, 2015.
- The City mailed White a notice of hearing on April 15, 2015 scheduling a hearing for June 2, 2015.
- At the hearing White argued the forfeiture proceeding was untimely; the hearing examiner denied the motion and granted forfeiture.
- White raised additional notice-defect arguments for the first time in superior court; the superior court affirmed and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forfeiture hearing was timely under RCW 69.50.505 and due process | White: 90‑day clock starts at seizure; hearing on June 2 (105 days after seizure) was untimely | City: 90‑day clock starts when claimant files written claim; hearing was within 90 days of White’s March 12 claim | Court: 90‑day clock is triggered by claimant’s written claim; hearing notice (April 15) commenced the adjudicative proceeding and complied with 90‑day requirement |
| What event commences the 90‑day requirement for an adjudicative forfeiture hearing | White: seizure should start the 90‑day period | City: claim of ownership (the claimant’s notice) starts the 90‑day period per APA framework | Court: APA governs forfeiture hearings; under RCW 34.05.413(5) an adjudicative proceeding commences upon notice of hearing and the 90‑day clock starts on receipt of the claimant’s application/claim |
| Whether any due process violation requires an earlier hearing despite statutory compliance | White: compliance with statute may nonetheless be insufficient here given timing | City: statutory/APA compliance satisfies due process and White showed no prejudice | Court: applied balancing test (length, reason, assertion, prejudice); no actual prejudice shown, hearing timely under due process |
| Adequacy of seizure/forfeiture notices (right to remove to superior court) and preservation | White: notices failed to inform him of right to remove to superior court; raised on appeal under manifest error exception | City: issue not raised before hearing examiner; no manifest constitutional error | Court: claim was unpreserved and White failed to show actual prejudice required for RAP 2.5(a)(3); declined to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Tellevik v. 31641 W. Rutherford St., 120 Wn.2d 68 (1993) (initially recognized need for full adversarial hearing within 90 days and tied APA procedures to forfeiture hearings)
- Tellevik v. 31641 W. Rutherford St., 125 Wn.2d 364 (1994) (clarified 90‑day requirement is central and cited APA)
- Escamilla v. Tri‑City Metro Drug Task Force, 100 Wn. App. 742 (2000) (discusses claim‑triggered commencement of hearing obligation)
- In re Forfeiture of One 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle, 166 Wn.2d 834 (2009) (addresses forfeiture procedure and precedent interaction)
- In re Forfeiture of One 1988 Black Chevrolet Corvette, 91 Wn. App. 320 (1997) (applies statutory timing and due process balancing factors)