{ "id": 11197526, "name": "In Re 1990 RED CHEROKEE JEEP, VIN 1J4FJ38L4LL146261", "name_abbreviation": "In re 1990 Red Cherokee Jeep", "decision_date": "1998-10-06", "docket_number": "No. COA97-964", "first_page": "108", "last_page": "113", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "131 N.C. App. 108" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "469 S.E.2d 557", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "562" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.C. App. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11919381 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "637-38" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/121/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 S.E.2d 868", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "871" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2553082 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "593" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0589-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-86.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 7, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "(b)", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "(e)" }, { "page": "(b)" }, { "page": "(b)(l)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 497, "char_count": 12368, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.23848977295587503 }, "sha256": "cd92111d8044fbc6cdae29574b5c730d1ff6f2ba427f292a44f5654918e651ae", "simhash": "1:cdf091604a236dd0", "word_count": 2028 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:28.584435+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN, John C. and SMITH concur." ], "parties": [ "In Re 1990 RED CHEROKEE JEEP, VIN 1J4FJ38L4LL146261" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nThis case involves an effort by the Town of Waynesville (\u201cthe Town\u201d) to have a Jeep seized and forfeited to the Town for use by the Waynesville Police Department. The superior court judge denied the \u201cMotion for Seizure Order and Forfeiture\u201d filed by the Town on the ground that petitioner lacked standing to bring the motion. We affirm the ruling in part, reverse it in part, and remand the case to the superior court.\nThe Jeep at issue was allegedly used by Aimee Nicole Morgan to transport a stolen safe from a restaurant to another location in order to force it open and steal its contents. On 24 January 1996, Morgan pled guilty to aiding and abetting a felonious larceny.\nOn 2 February 1996, the Town of Waynesville filed a \u201cMotion for Seizure Order and Forfeiture\u201d pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-86.1 (1993). The motion was filed under the docket number of the criminal case in which judgment was rendered against Ms. Morgan. It states that Ms. Morgan owned the Jeep on the date of the offense (12 June 1995), that she currently owns the Jeep, and that she \u201ckeeps and maintains the property at or near 101 Eagle Gap Road, Waynesville.\u201d The motion goes on to say that because the Jeep was used to convey stolen property worth more than $2,000, it is subject to seizure and forfeiture under G.S. 14-86.1.\nThe superior court denied petitioner\u2019s motion in full. The court held that petitioner had no standing to request an order of forfeiture under G.S. 14-86.1. The trial judge\u2019s view was that only the district attorney could petition for an order of forfeiture. The trial judge made no written conclusions about the request for an order authorizing seizure.\nThis appeal presents us with two distinct questions: (1) Who may petition for an order for seizure under G.S. 14-86.1?; and (2) Who may petition for an order of forfeiture under G.S. 14-86.1? We address the forfeiture question first.\nThe controlling statute in this case, G.S. 14-86.1, is found in Chapter 14 of the General Statutes, \u201cCriminal Law,\u201d Article 16, \u201cLarceny.\u201d The statute provides in relevant part,\nAll conveyances, including vehicles, watercraft or aircraft, used to unlawfully conceal, convey or transport property in violation of G.S. 14-71, 14-71.1, or 20-106, or used by any person in the commission of armed or common-law robbery, or used by any person in the commission of any larceny when the value of the property taken is more than two thousand dollars ($2,000) shall be subject to forfeiture as provided herein, except that:\n(6) The trial judge in the criminal proceeding which may subject the conveyance to forfeiture may order the seized conveyance returned to the owner if he finds forfeiture inappropriate. .. .\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-86.1(a) (1993) (emphasis added). Subsection (b) provides,\nAny conveyance subject to forfeiture under this section may be seized by any law-enforcement officer upon process issued by any district or superior court having original jurisdiction over the offense except that seizure without such process may be made when:\n(1) The seizure is incident to an arrest or subject to a search under a search warrant; or\n(2) The property subject to seizure has been the subject of a prior judgment in favor of the State in a criminal injunction or forfeiture proceeding under this section.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-86.1(b) (emphasis added). By the statute\u2019s own terms, then, a forfeiture proceeding under G.S. 14-86.1 is a criminal proceeding.\nThe authority to prosecute criminal actions in the courts of North Carolina rests exclusively with the district attorneys of the State. N.C. Const. art. IV, \u00a7 18; N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-61 (1995); State v. Camacho, 329 N.C. 589, 593, 406 S.E.2d 868, 871 (1991); State v. Sturgill, 121 N.C. App. 629, 637-38, 469 S.E.2d 557, 562 (1996). The Town had no authority, therefore, to petition the Criminal Division of the Haywood County Superior Court for an order of forfeiture under G.S. 14-86.1.\nOur conclusion that district attorneys alone may prosecute forfeiture proceedings under G.S. 14-86.1 is bolstered by other statutory provisions. Subsection (e) of G.S. 14-86.1 states in part,\nAll conveyances subject to forfeiture under the provisions of this section shall be forfeited pursuant to the procedures for forfeiture of conveyances used to conceal, convey, or transport intoxicating beverages found in G.S. 18B-504.\nSection 18B-504 provides for the forfeiture of property, including vehicles, used to commit violations of the alcoholic beverage control laws of Chapter 18B (\u201cABC laws\u201d). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 18B-504 (1995). When the owner or possessor of a conveyance subject to forfeiture is found guilty of violating an ABC law, the presiding judge in the criminal proceeding must decide whether to order forfeiture of the property. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 18B-504(e)(l) (1995). The designation of the judge who presides at the criminal trial as the person who is to decide the forfeiture issue clearly indicates that the district attorney is to represent the State at the forfeiture hearing. Similarly, section 18B-504 expressly authorizes the district attorney to seek the forfeiture of property if the owner is unknown, or if the owner is known and has been charged with a crime but is unavailable for trial. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 18B-504(i). These provisions, incorporated by reference into G.S. 14-86.1, indicate a plain legislative intent that only district attorneys are to prosecute forfeiture proceedings under G.S. 14-86.1.\nHaving decided that the Town had no standing to petition for an order for forfeiture under G.S. 14-86.1, we now examine whether it had standing to seek an order authorizing seizure of the Jeep.\nWe make two preliminary observations. First, contrary to what is implied in petitioner\u2019s brief, the procedures for seizing a conveyance under G.S. 14-86.1 are not found in General Statutes section 18B-504; section 18B-504 contains only the procedures for forfeiture of conveyances under G.S. 14-86.1. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-86.1(e). Second, we note that only \u201claw-enforcement officers\u201d are authorized to seize conveyances under G.S. 14-86.1. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-86.1(b). The Town of Waynesville is not a \u201claw-enforcement officer\u201d and thus has no authority to seize Ms. Morgan\u2019s Jeep under G.S. 14-86.1.\nThe question before us, however, is not whether the Town has authority to seize Ms. Morgan\u2019s Jeep, but whether it has standing to petition the superior court for an order authorizing seizure of the Jeep by law-enforcement officers. Subsection (b) of G.S. 14-86.1 lists the circumstances under which the seizure of a conveyance is permitted:\nAny conveyance subject to forfeiture under this section may be seized by any law-enforcement officer upon process issued by any district or superior court having original jurisdiction over the offense except that seizure without such process may be made when:\n(1) The seizure is incident to an arrest or subject to a search under a search warrant; or\n(2) The property subject to seizure has been the subject of a prior judgment in favor of the State in a criminal injunction or forfeiture proceeding under this section.\nSubsection (b)(2) is inapplicable to this case because no such judgment has been rendered. Similarly, the Town\u2019s proposed seizure of Ms. Morgan\u2019s Jeep would not be \u201cincident to arrest\u201d; Ms. Morgan has already been arrested and convicted of the larceny in which she allegedly used the Jeep. Furthermore, the provision authorizing seizure upon the issuance of \u201cprocess\u201d by a district or superior court does not seem to apply here. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 15A-301 through 15A-305 (discussing the four common forms of criminal process: citation, criminal summons, warrant for arrest, and order for arrest).\nAccordingly, in this case, Ms. Morgan\u2019s Jeep may be seized under G.S. 14-86.1 only pursuant to a search under a search warrant. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-86.1(b)(l); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-242 (1997) (providing that an item is subject to seizure pursuant to a search warrant if there is probable cause to believe that it has been used to commit a crime). We thus read the Town\u2019s \u201cMotion for Seizure Order\u201d as an application for an order authorizing a search for the purpose of seizing the Jeep. Although the location of the Jeep is already known, in order to seize it, a search warrant must be obtained. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-241 (defining search warrant in relevant part as \u201ca court order and process directing a law-enforcement officer to search designated premises . . . for the purpose of seizing designated items\u201d).\nIt bears mentioning that, where G.S. 14-86.1(b) authorizes the seizure of conveyances \u201cupon process issued by any district or superior court,\u201d we do not believe the word \u201cprocess\u201d includes search warrants. If the legislature intended the word \u201cprocess\u201d to include search warrants, there would have been no reason to provide in subsection 14-86.1(b)(l) that law-enforcement officers may seize conveyances \u201cwithout such process\u201d when the seizure is \u201csubject to a search under a search warrant.\u201d\nThe issue before this Court, then, is whether the Town of Waynesville has standing to apply for a search warrant authorizing seizure of the Jeep. We find nothing in Article 11 of the Criminal Procedure Act, \u201cSearch Warrants,\u201d that would prohibit the Town from applying for a search warrant. The Criminal Procedure Act provides that only Justices, judges, clerks, and magistrates may issue search warrants, see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-243 (1997), and that only law-enforcement officers may execute them, see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-247 (1997), but it does not limit those persons or entities who may apply for search warrants. Any person or entity \u2014 including, as here, a town \u2014 may apply for a search warrant.\nOn the narrow question of whether the Town of Waynesville has standing to apply for a search warrant, we hold that it does. We do not decide whether the Town\u2019s application for a search warrant has satisfied the procedural requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-244 (1997). Nor do we decide whether the Town has shown an adequate basis for issuance of the warrant, see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-245 (1997). Our holding today is limited to recognizing the Town\u2019s standing to apply for the search warrant. We reiterate and emphasize that the Town has no authority whatsoever to execute the search warrant for Ms. Morgan\u2019s Jeep. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 14-86.1 and 15A-247.\nIn summary, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied petitioner\u2019s motion for forfeiture under 14-86.1. The trial court erred, however, when it denied petitioner\u2019s \u201cMotion for Seizure Order\u201d on the basis that petitioner lacked standing to seek it. We remand the case to the trial court for disposition of petitioner\u2019s \u201cMotion for Seizure Order.\u201d\nAffirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.\nJudges MARTIN, John C. and SMITH concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEWIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Brown, Queen & Patten, PA, by Frank G. Queen, and Brown, Ward & Haynes, PA, by Michael Bonfoey, for petitioner-appellant the Town of Waynesville.", "No counsel contra." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In Re 1990 RED CHEROKEE JEEP, VIN 1J4FJ38L4LL146261\nNo. COA97-964\n(Filed 6 October 1998)\n1. Motor Vehicles\u2014 forfeiture \u2014 standing\nThe Town of Waynesville had no standing to petition for an order of forfeiture of a vehicle under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-86.1 where the vehicle was used to transport a stolen safe. By the statue\u2019s terms, a forfeiture is a criminal proceeding and the authority to prosecute criminal actions rests exclusively with the district attorneys; moreover, other statutory provisions indicate a plain legislative intent that only district attorneys are to prosecute forfeiture proceedings under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-86.1.\n2. Motor Vehicles-seizure\u2014 search warrant \u2014 standing to request\nThe trial court erred by denying for lack of standing petitioner\u2019s motion to seize a motor vehicle used to transport a stolen safe. Under the facts of this case, the vehicle may be seized under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-86.1 only pursuant to a search warrant. Although only justices, judges, clerks and magistrates may issue search warrants and only law enforcement officers may execute them, any person or entity may apply for a search warrant.\nAppeal by petitioner, the Town of Waynesville, from order entered 2 May 1997 by Judge J. Marlene Hyatt in Haywood County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 May 1998.\nBrown, Queen & Patten, PA, by Frank G. Queen, and Brown, Ward & Haynes, PA, by Michael Bonfoey, for petitioner-appellant the Town of Waynesville.\nNo counsel contra." }, "file_name": "0108-01", "first_page_order": 142, "last_page_order": 147 }