*1 then, Ultimately, Id. “courts must delve admittedly SARGENT,
into Detona Appellant murkier waters of [the] (Defendant necessity” particu- reasonable under the below), lars of each case as it arises. Id. hypothetical Trustee’s falls Indiana,
between Foster ’s two extremes —cash val STATE of and The Consolidat- ue City amassed over time and not “closeted in Indianapolis/Marion ed Coun- anticipation bankruptcy,” but certainly ty, Indianapolis Metropolitan and The more than a “minor amount” and almost (Plain- Department, Appellees Police certainly exceeding “necessary com below). tiffs forts of life.” But the here are facts much No. 49S02-1312-MI-790. spec closer to Zwmbrun’s end of the greater, trum —the cash value at stake is Supreme Court of Indiana. hardly but inconsistent with the “neces life,” sary comforts of and the Trustee has March not сlaimed that the cash value was “clos in anticipation bankruptcy.” eted Fos bankruptcy
ter entrusts courts with assess
ing necessity” “reasonable case case
under Section 22—and as the Trustee dis argument, meeting
cussed at oral
creditors, see 11 U.S.C. an
early opportunity identify such cases so may question Trustee raise the bankruptcy court’s review. We
therefore need not deviate from the stat language hypotheti
ute’s actual to avoid a problem.
cal
Conclusion
We conclude that under Indiana Code 27-l-12-14(e), statutory
section phrase
“dependent upon person” such does not “children,”
modify “spouse” only but
“any relative” named beneficiary as оf a policy. Any potential
life-insurance as-ap-
plied constitutional problems arising from statutory directive be addressed case,
case contemplates. Foster
DICKSON, RUCKER, DAVID, and
MASSA, JJ., concur. *2 Ault, Chaudhary,
Andrew Ábshishek Services, Inc., Indianapolis, Legal Indiana IN, Legal Ser- Brengle, F. Indiana John IN, vices, Inc., Attorneys for Albany, New Appellant. Zoeller, Attorney F. General
Gregory Steiner, Indiana, Deputy Attor- David Lee IN, General, Indianapolis, Attorneys ney Appellee. for RUCKER, Justice. summary judg-
On cross-motions vehiclе for- the trial court deemed a ment awarded the same to the India- feited and Department. napolis Metropolitan Police facts disclose the undisputed However the possession. is entitled to vehicle’s owner reverse the 'We therefore trial court. History
Facts and Procedural
Indiana,
City
of India-
The State of
Indianapolis Metropolitan
napolis, and
(collectively “the
Depаrtment
Police
State”)
Detona
complaint against
filed a
of her 1996
seeking forfeiture
approxi-
worth
Century
Buick
automobile
$1,700.00.
State’s action was
mately
The
commonly referred
under what is
pursued
Statute.” to as the “Civil Forfeiture
seq.
partic-
§§
et
More
Ind.Code
34-24-1
34-24-1-1(a)
section
ularly
Code
part:
in relevant
(1) All
following may be seized:
used or are
...
if
vehicles
per-
or
for use
intended
towed,
possession
transрort
of them to
27. The vehicle was
sons in
any manner to facilitate
trans-
or in
January
arrested
theft. On
(B) Any
following:
...
portation
terms
agreement,
under
of an
Sar-
... or
...
if
converted
stolen
gent pleaded guilty to theft as
D
a Class
of that
repurchase
the retail
value
felony
days
and was sentenced to
($100)
is one hundred dollars
Department
of Correction with all but
*3
or more.
suspended
days
probation.
four
on
summary judgment
In
action
the
this
Twenty days after Sargent pleaded
complaint for
undis-
State’s
forfeiture the
guilty
judg
the State moved for summary
as
puted
by
facts
shown
the materials ment on
forfeiture complaint
its
Sar
and
to the trial
follows.
presented
court are as
gent
with
responded
a
cross-motion
Sargent
employed
was
at a Wal-Mart re-
summary judgment. After
hearing
a
the
On
turn-merchandise distribution center.
trial
the
granted
court
State’s
and
motion
16, 2011,
September
she drove her 1996
Sargent’s
denied
motion. On
Sar
appeal
Century to
arrival
Buick
the center. After
(1)
gent argued
there was no
be
nexus
a
her car
Sargent allowed co-worker to use
attempted
tween her
theft and the vehicle
during
understanding
her shift with the
work;
she
come
used to
her
and
would return
that Sar-
co-worker
so
exempt
by
vehicle was
from
op
execution
drive home.
befоre
gent could
Minutes
eration of the Indiana
and
Constitution1
Sargent was scheduled to leave for the
exemption
Indiana’s civil
statute. The
in
day,
grabbed four
their
she
iPhones
rejected
Court of Appeals
both claims and
original
and stuffed them under
packaging
judgment
affirmed the
of the trial court.
phones
The
her shirt.
had a retail value of
(Ind.
v.
Sargent
When the State cannot show actual court and remand this cause with instruc- sion, mаy prevail nonetheless on proof of tions to enter an order granting summary State,. possession. constructive Gray v. judgment in Sargent’s favor.3 (Ind.2011). 171, 174 957 N.E.2d “A person constructively possesses when [an item] RUSH, C.J., (1) DICKSON, J., concur. capability has to main item;
tain dominion and control over the
DAVID, J., dissents
separate
with
the intent
to maintain dominion
MASSA,
opinion
J.,
in which
joins.
(citing
control over it.” Id.
Lampkins
(Ind.1997),
682 N.E.2d
J.,
MASSA,
separate
dissents with
(Ind.
reh’g,
on
to maintain such control. I disagree majority’s with the conclusion
By failing to that Sargent demonstrate that “the record makes clear that her de- possession” was “in of the vehicle impossible as con- tention made it for her to have templated Indiana ‘capability’ Code section 34-24- to maintain such control.” 1-1, the State was not entitled to Op. forfeiture at 733. Though Sargent true was de- of the tained, vehicle. The trial court thus erred her detention did not terminate her by entering summary judgment Buick, possession constructive itas 3. Because we resolve utоry this case on other construction or Indiana constitutional grounds Sargent's we decline to address stat- claim. away question, have this I towed Should we reached not until vehicle was it. have also with the capability agreed her to control would Court of she lost
that that is not a “debtor” Appeals con- knowledge With § § 34-55-10-2 or Article 22 be- under at the rel- structively possessed her Buick a “debtor” who owes an “[o]nе cause time, § 34- I turn to Indiana evant Code another, obligation esp. obligation an to (a)(1)(B) (2014), which, ma-' as the 24-1-1 money,” and order is not a pay a forfeiture recounts, permits forfeiture of a jority money judgment. Black’s Law Dictio- by the or intended to be used vehicle used (9th 2009). Thus, by nary ed. the plain transport it to possession 34-55-10-2(c), § language of Indiana Code value of at stolen with a retail 1, § 22 as well as Article Indiana Bеcause Sar- least one hundred dollars. Constitution, not entitled Sargent is to ex- Buick to gent fully intended use the from forfeiture of her vehicle un- emption collectively val- transport stolen iPhones 34-24-l-l(a)(l)(B). § der Indiana Code price approximately retail ued at a $1,200, reasons, have and would done so had securi- I respectfully For these dissent. intervened, I ty agree exempt with the Court not Because Buick wаs not from forfeiture, § and the trial court that 34- Appeals I affirm the trial would court’s 24-l-l(a)(l)(B) allowed the State to seize motion for grant summary State’s some the Buick—however ill-advised Sargent’s and denial of motion official summary judgment. find this use of discretion. Court, Sargent argues this Before J., MASSA, joins. for- exempt
her Buick is nevertheless from feiture under Code 34-55-10-2 MASSA, J., dissenting. 1, § and Article 22 of the Indiana Notwithstanding my admiration for the 1, § Article 22 provides Constitution. case, in this majority’s justice desire to do that: fully join I I Justice David’s dissent. write privilege enjoy of the debtor to *6 to separately offer an additional comment life, necessary comforts be rec- of shall about discretion. laws, by exempting a ognized wholesome notes, As Justice David Ms. reasonable amount of from sei- property Wal-Mart, her car to drove work at where sale, the payment any zure or for of debt then employee she committed an theft of liability hereafter and or contracted: work, debt, phones. four cell at While she imprisonment be no there shall loaned her car a friend to run an er- to except in case of fraud. car, rand. The friend it returned and added.) to effectuate (Emphasis Enacted inwas the Wal-Mart lot when was 22, 1, § § Article 34-55-10- Code is, There caught. my judgment, in suffi- 2(c), part, in rеlevant states that “[t]he Sargent constructively evidence cient that a debtor following personal property of possessed her car that it was “intend- and (2) domiciled in Indiana ... exempt: phones, ... transport” ed for use to tangible personal real estate or [o]ther technically eligible and thus for forfeiture. eight of dollars thousand added.) ($8,000).” According really? Sargent and (Emphasis Firing having But $1,700 Sargent, prosеcuted felony to her Buick falls her'righteously valued at theft 34-55-10-2(c) protections enough? § within the not The State had to of take 1, car, § Article 22. too? and her
735 seems, now, it (Ind.Ct.App.2013), overreach has trans. denied 7 This modest, (Ind.2014), grant our Court to some prompted prosecutor 993 used the excessively equitable, relief to the almost against a RICO statute1 common home of a possible thief via the return punished TV, burglar stolе a computer, who and to Buick. It mind twenty-year-old brings cards, tried, and credit un- subsequently quoted maxim that hard cases the often to use successfully, depart- the cards at quote complete law. The more make bad ment, drug, liquor and stores on the same today in to applies from Baron Rolfe 1842 night. Court of Appeals vacated the Sargent’s of case: “This is one those Ms. conviction, racketeering doing but in sо is, ... it no unfortunate cases which precedent have created could doubt, hardship upon plaintiff to be a statute; applications frustrate future remedy, by a but consider- without General Attorney certainly argued so ought not to Hard ation we be influenced. Arg. without success our Court. Oral observed, cases, has frequently been Video Tr. at 33:34-36:38.2 bad law.” apt to introduce Winterbottom (Exch. Wright, Eng. Rep. 152 402 Our Constitution and statutеs police vest Pleas) 405-06. Indeed. tuned for Stay prosecutors with great power initi- to targets of arguments appropriate more ate proceedings that can de- ultimately they “possess” forfeiture laws that didn’t prive liberty divest where their new Mercedes because weren’t proven. certain crimes are State and fed- it at sitting in the time of their arrest. eral legislative bodies have provided thе special large- tools RICO and forfeiture years is not the first time in This recent ly target organized crime3 and narcotics that we have seen an almost de- comical trafficking.4 These tools Weapons of law are not without ployment enforcement critics, Destruction tar- their against pedestrian Mass their misuse fur- invites N.E,2d Moreover, In Miller v. gets. scrutiny.5 ther when authori- Idea, Blakey, ... employed 1. "A who is or asso- Rоbert RICO: The Genesis anof Crime, enterprise, knowingly Organized with an ciated and who at Trends June intentionally partici- conducts or otherwise 16. enterprise pates in the activities of that Although long history, 4. forfeiture through pattern racketeering activity[] has a its influence, past substantially use corrupt has increased in the commits business a Class C (2008). thirty years, hailed felony.” as an effective means of Ind.Code 35-45-6-2 drug addressing tradе. United v. Parcel States St., argument Emery We heard oral with the Miller Land & Residence at 28 914 F.2d Cir.1990) (“One (1st pending. ultimately on powerful order transfer We of the most accept jurisdiction ap- weapons government’s declined over in the arsenal in *7 peal. Attorney ability will tell if continuing drugs Time the General's ‘war’ on to is its explained fears—which needn't be further obtain the civil forfeiture of that is purposes drug the of this dissent—are realized. used for or facilitates violations of the laws.”). "punishing In addition to and deter George Blakey, Robert 3. known his role in ring engage illegal drug activi those who legislation drafting that became the Federal ty,” purpose a is to forfeiture statute Organiza- Corrupt Racketeer Influenced and “defray expense in the some incurred Act, 1961-68, State, §§ tion codified at 18 U.S.C. against drug dealing.” battle Katner v. development, (Ind. beginning 1995). traces RICO’s with 655 N.E.2d 347-48 government's attempt the the to understand See, Moores, culminating Mafia and meant e.g., Reforming with text to 5. Eric Civil Act, organized syndi- "combat[] crime and Rev. other Asset 51 Ariz. L. Reform Forfeiture (2009) ("[Current] activity procedural as well of safe- cated as the infiltration 779 legitimate groups.” guards police entities criminal G. are minimal and seize 736 Jus- overreach, among judiciary tempted argument is discussion
ties argu- the oral justice partic- in a tices conference after remedies that do impose ment, the law over the Court has determined but do harm to ular case over this jurisdiction not assume should time. appeal. answer, sometimes, Rolfe’s cases, bring not about hard is to truism transfer Accordingly, granting order place. in the first them VACATED, hereby DE- and transfer is is Ap-
NIED. The decision of the Court as published Dixon v. peals, hereby (Ind.Ct.Apр.2014), Appeals au- REINSTATED Court 65(D). thority. Appellate See Ind. Rule R. App. is at appeal This an end. 58(B). DIXON, Appellant, L. Robert RUSH, C.J., and DICKSON JJ., concur. RUCKER Indiana, Appellee.
STATE No. 84S01-1410-CR-683. MASSA, JJ., dissent from DAVID adopt denial of transfer and would Supreme Court of Indiana. Appeals’ dissenting opinion. Court of March Order
Published 30, 2014, the
By order dated October granted petition seeking transfer
Court from jurisdiction Appeals. Court review, including considering
After further points presented by counsel at oral Cates, goes virtually oversight.’’); no Editorial amok." Yoder & Brad with ment John Board, Hunter, Corrupted Play Bounty USA a Crime- When Police Government Self-Interest Evil, (Nov. 20.2014), (Sept. Today http://www.usatoday. Fighting Tool into an Wash. Post 18, 2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/ com/story/opinion/2014/11/19/police-civil- asset-forfeiture-profit-drug-trafficking- opinions/abolish-the-civil-asset-forfeiture- ("The programs, program-we-helped-create/2014/09/18/72f08 editorials-debates/19299879/ gains ac-3d02-lle4-b0ea8141703bbf6f_story.html? ill-gotten born in the 1970s to seize drug is not trafficking, wpmk=MK0000203. unmoored Such criticism from have become stage; report original taking profit a recent from their intent of limited to national *8 crime.”). state and out of directors of the raised several concerns about our Even former Guerra, Department’s practices. As- Justice Forfeiture Office local Kristine Asset Seized Cars, Homes Taken— have called for an the initiative Star Finds Cases end to sets: create, Indianapolis finding particularly Charged, Not worked to "it And Owners Star, govem- painful heavy Feb. Al. to watch hand at