Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, Minn.S.Ct., 12/17/2009. After a late afternoon round of golf, Mr. Laase met up with his wife at the club. Mrs. Laase was scheduled to pay her own round of golf so Mr. Laase packed up his clubs and went home. Six hours later, his wife called to report that she’d been busted in the couple’s Chevrolet Tahoe for DUI. Mrs. Laase eventually pled guilty to second degree criminal test refusal.
The state then seized the Tahoe. Mr. Laase challenged the seizure, saying that he was an “innocent owner,” which prevented the seizure. This statute provides:
A motor vehicle is not subject to forfeiture under this section if its owner can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the owner did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the vehicle would be used or operated in any manner contrary to law or that the owner took reasonable steps to prevent the use of the vehicle by the offender.
The appellate court concludes that “owner” includes all owners, not just the one who was at home with the kids while the other owner was out driving drunk. They reach this conclusion by invoking a statutory rule of construction that the use of the singular of a word includes the plural. Since “owner” is now “owners” all owners of a jointly owned and jointly shared vehicle must be “innocent owners” to assert the defense. The Laase’s readily, if foolishly, acknowledged that each had a key to the Tahoe and that neither asked the permission of the other to use it. What the appellate court characterized as the “mutual use and control” of the Tahoe made them both “owners.” So, get those permission slips printed up and handy, and lose those extra keys.
No comments:
Post a Comment