Commonwealth v. Allen, No. J-68-2014 (Dec. 29, 2014) (Saylor, J., dissenting)

8/10/2019 Commonwealth v. Allen, No. J-68-2014 (Dec. 29, 2014) (Saylor, J., dissenting)

1/5

[J-68-2014][M.O.

aer .]

IN

THE

SUPREME COURT OF ENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN

ISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH

OFPENNSYLVANIA

A p p e l l a n t

v .

TODD

ALLEN,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No.40EAP 013

Appeal rom

the

Order

of he

Commonwealt h Court

ntered on

12/18/12

t

No. 1345 CD

011,

a f f i r m i n g the order entered on / 2 8 / 1 1 i n

the Court f

Common

leas, r i m i n a l

D i v i s i o n , P h i l a d e l p h i a County t No .

CP-51-M

D-0009453-2010

ARGUED: S e p t e m b e r 9,

2014

DISSENTING

OPINION

MR.

JUSTICE

SAYLOR

DECIDED: December 29

2014

T h e

Court

p r e s e n t l y

approves

the

t r a n s f e r

of l e g a l

t i t l e

t o p r i v a t e

p r o p e r t y

t o the

government absent n o t i c e or process

r e f l e c t e d on the present

r e c o r d , and

t

a l l o w s f o r

s u c h t r a n s f e r a t

the

end

of a

30-day

l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d immediately

o l l o w i n g

jeopardy.

r e s p e c t f u l l y

d i s s e n t .

T h e r i g h t t o a c q u i r e ,

possess,

and p r o t e c t p r o p e r t y i s deeply engrained i n the

f e d e r a l and Pennsylvania C o n s t i t u t i o n s .

Se e,

. g . ,

A. CONST. a r t . I , 1.

Correspondingly,

the presumption t h a t ,

i f

reasonably

p o s s i b l e ,

t i t l e t o p r o p e r t y should

remain

w i t h , or be r e s t o r e d t o ,

i t s

r i g h t f u l owner

s

strengthened by m u l t i p l e i n t e r r e l a t e d

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

p r o p o s i t i o n s ,

i n c l u d i n g t h a t the owner may not be d e p r i v e d of t except by

d u e

process

o f l a w , s e e

U.S.

CONST.

amend. XIV; PA.

CONST. r t . I ,

9,

and

t h a t

the

government

may not take p r i v a t e

p r o p e r t y except o r p u b l i c

u se

and upon paymen t o f

j u s t compensation,

e e

PA. CONST.

r t .

I ,

0; U.S. CONST. am en d. .


2/5

Our t a t u t o r y

law

a l s o

r e f l e c t s

the primacy

of guaranteei ng

t o

c i t i z e n s

the secure

ownership

o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y . S t a t u t e s a u t h o r i z i n g the

t a k i n g

of

p r o p e r t y o f t e n e x p r e s s l y

r e q u i r e t h a t d u e process

be

observed,

s e e,

e . g . ,66

a.C.S.

2704(d); 53 .S. 57401,

and the L e g i s l a t u r e h as c o n s t r a i n e d eminent domain t a k i n g s

even

m o r e r e s t r i c t i v e l y

than

i s

r e q u i r e d by the C o n s t i t u t i o n , s e e

26

a.C.S.

204(a); Readi ng Area Wat er Auth.

v .

S c h u y l k i l l R i v e r Greenway Assn,

___ Pa. ___,

100

A.3d 572 2014).

1

A d d i t i o n a l l y ,

the

D i s p o s i t i o n

o f Abandoned and Unclaimed

P r o p e r t y Act

mandat es

t h a t unclaimed

p r o p e r t y

be h e l d i n

custody

. g . ,by the

Commonwealt h or

a i n a n c i a l

i n s t i t u t i o n

o r

s e v e r a l

years

b e f o r e

t i t l e may

r a n s f e r ,

l l w i t h

the

u l t i m a t e

goal of

e t u r n i n g

the

p r o p e r t y

i n q u e s t i o n

t o

i t s owner.

Se e

72. P.S. 1301.3

r e f l e c t i n g

e sc h e a tm ent p e r i o d s

of

from

t h r e e t o f i f t e e n years depending

on the type

o f

p r o p e r t y ) .

Se e g e n e r a l l y Delaware

Cnty.

v . F i r s t

Union

C o r p . ,605 Pa. 547, 550, 992 A.2d 112, 114 2010) d e s c r i b i n g a seven-

year e sc h e a tm ent c h e m e ).

I n the p o l i c e f o r f e i t u r e s e t t i n g , p r o c e d u r a l

safeguards

seem p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t

because of the p o s s i b i l i t y of a c o n f l i c t o f

i n t e r e s t

namely, the p r o p e r t y seized and

f o r f e i t e d t o

law

enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s

i s

u l t i m a t e l y

t r a n s f e r r e d

t o the u se o f

those

same u t h o r i t i e s . Se e

42

a.C.S. 6801 e ) - h

.

2

So o n g

as

the s e i z u r e and o r f e i t u r e

are a d j u d i c a t e d a s

e g a l l y p r o p e r , any

c t u a l

c o n f l i c t abates,

a s

he o r f e i t u r e p r o v i s i o n s

are then s hown t o be e r v i n g t h e i r l a w f u l aims, n c l u d i n g d e t er r i n g crime and p r e v e n t i n g

1

Although th e s e i z u r e o f p r o p e r t y through the e x e r c i s e o f

governmental

power o t h e r

than eminent

domain do e s not

g i v e

r i s e

t o

a t a k i n g s

c l a i m ,

s e e

Bennis v . M i c h . ,516

U.S.

442,

52,

116

S.

t .

99 4, 1001

(1996), he dual requirements

f

p u b l i c

u se

and

u s t

compensation are mentioned here a s l l u s t r a t i v e

of he

broader p o i n t t h a t p r o t e c t i n g t i t l e

t o p r o p e r t y a g a i n s t a r b i t r a r y government o n f i s c a t i o n h a s been a o u n d a t i o n a l

concern

since the

b e g i n n i n g

of he R e p u b l i c .

2

To the

degree

the

Commonwealt h b e l i e v e s

i t

may

e t a i n

p r o p e r t y p u r p o r t e d l y

f o r f e i t e d

o u t s i d e

the

S e c t i o n 6801 framework, he

l e g a l

b a s i s f o r s u c h e n t i t l e m e n t i s u n c l e a r .

[J-68-2014][M.O.

aer, . ] -

2


3/5

the

continued l l i i t

u se

of

he u b j e c t p r o p e r t y .

See

Bennis,

516 U.S. t 452, 116 S. t .

a t 1000; Calero-Toledo v . Pearson Yacht Leasi ng Co.,416

U.S.

663, 679, 94 S. C t .

2080,

2090 1974). T h e p r o p r i e t y of the s e i z u r e , howeve r, cannot

be

simply

a s s u m e d.

I f no p r e - d e p r i v a t i o n h e a r i n g i s h e l d , then a p o s t - d e p r i v a t i o n process s r e q u i r e d t o g i v e

the owner n o t i c e and

an

o p p o r t u n i t y t o

s t a t e

w h y the p r o p e r t y should be r e t u r n e d t o

him. Se e

Zinermon v .

Burch,494 U.S. 113,

128, 110 S.

C t . 97 5, 984-85

1990); s e e

a l s o

42

Pa.C.S.

6801(c) r e q u i r i n g t h a t , i n the

event

o f a s e i z u r e w i t h o u t process,

proceedings o r

the

issuance o f process

s h a l l be

i n s t i t u t e d

f o r t h w i t h ) . Se e

g e n e r a l l y

Commonwealt h

v .

W e s t,937 A.2d

516, 526

Pa. Super.

2007)

A l t h o u g h . . .

a v e h i c l e

may

be v a l i d l y seized w i t h o u t

process under

the F o r f e i t u r e

A c t ,

a p e r s o n s

p r o p e r t y

r i g h t s t h e r e i n are

not x t i n g u i s h e d

u n t i l

a c o u r t holds o r f e i t u r e

proceedings and

orders

the o r f e i t u r e . ) .

N e v e r t h e l e s s , the

Court

p r e s e n t l y f i n d s no b a s i s t o

r e q u i r e

any

process

a t a l l t o

ensure

t h a t

p r o p e r t y was p p r o p r i a t e l y

seized,

u l i n g i n s t e a d t h a t an automatic t r a n s f e r

of i t l e may

ccur

f t e r the passage o f 30

days.

During t h i s

p e r i o d ,

the

i n d i v i d u a l

who

may be innocent of

any

c r i m i n a l wrongdoing and unlearned i n the

law

may have no

i n d i c a t i o n

t h a t

a minimal window o f o p p o r t u n i t y

i s c l o s i n g

on h i s

ownership

o f the

s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y . I n c a s e s s u c h a s h i s

one) wh ere the

p r o p e r t y

owner

s charged

w i t h

a crime,

moreover, t

seems n l i k e l y

t h a t

the

defendant would

be p r i m a r i l y

concerned

T h e Commonwealt h claims

t h a t

a o r f e i t u r e order i s s u e d i n A p r i l 2002,

even

months

b e f o r e i t dismissed a l l charges a g a i n s t A l l e n . Se e

B r i e f

f o r Commonwealt h a t 13 n . 4 .

However,

h e

papers

h a t

the

Commonwealt h

now

p r o f f e r s

a s

u p p o r t i n g

i t s

c o n t e n t i o n

have

not

been i n c l u d e d as p a r t

of the

r e c o r d

on

appeal,

and,

moreover, t

do e s

n o t

appear t h a t any u d i c i a l l y recognized

docket i n f o r m a t i o n i s

p r e s e n t . I n

any event,

the

i s s u e accepted f o r r e v i e w

s

framed by the

Commonwealt h

a c k s any suggestion

t h a t a o r f e i t u r e may ave

occurred, s e e

Commonwealt h v . A l l e n ,

621

Pa. 119,74

A.3d

121

(2013)

(per

c u r i a m ) ,

and

the import

o f

the

m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n transcends

the

i n d i v i d u a l i z e d circumstances p r e s e n t e d .

[J-68-2014][M.O.

aer, . ] - 3


4/5

w i t h

r e c o v e r i n g

the

seized

p r o p e r t y

d u r i n g

h i s p e r i o d o f

jeopardy,

a s h i s

mos t

p r e s s i n g

concern

would

appear o

be a v o i d i n g

c r i m i n a l punis hme nt. Again, however , under the

m a j o r i t y s

h o l d i n g t i t l e i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y t r a n s f e r r e d t o the government a f t e r t h i s b r i e f

p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g jeopardy, simp ly because

the

government has p h y s i c a l l y taken t from

the i t i z e n .

T h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a motion

f o r

the r e t u r n o f

p r o p e r t y under

c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r a l

r u l e

588 has been h e l d

t o s a t i s f y the require ment of

p o s t - d e p r i v a t i o n p r o c e s s .

Se e,

e . g . ,

McKenna

v . Portman,538

Fed. App x. 221, 224-25 (3d

C i r .

2013).

That r u l e

c o n t a i n s

a r e s t r i c t i o n r e g a r d i n g the

forum

wh ere the motion

may

be

f i l e d ,

s e e

Pa.R.Crim.P. 588(a) Such

motion s h a l l be

i l e d i n

the c o u r t

o f

common pleas

o r

the

j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t i n which

the

p r o p e r t y

w a s s e i z e d . ) ,

b u t i t

do e s not

c o n t a i n

any

time

l i m i t a t i o n . T h e

m a j o r i t y s

s o l u t i o n i s t o

impos e

a 30-day s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s under a

w a i v e r r u b r i c . Se eM a j o r i t y

Opinion,

s l i p

op.a t 14. Waiver p r e c e p t s , however,

o r d i n a r i l y p e r t a i n

w h en

the aggrieved

p a r t y

c o u l d have

r a i s e d

an

i s s u e a t

an

e a r l i e r

proceeding t h a t a c t u a l l y occurred, u t f a i l e d t o

d o so. Here,

h e r e was no a r l i e r i n

r em

proceeding r e l a t i v e t o the seized

p r o p e r t y ,

and hence, the m a j o r i t y

i s

l e f t t o r e s o r t t o a

j u r i s d i c t i o n a l t a i l p e r t a i n i n g t o the

c r i m i n a l

m a t t e r which, l t h o u g h a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the

s e i z u r e

i n t erm s

of the

u n d e r l y i n g

f a c t s ,

i s nonetheless

a

d i s t i n c t

type of l e g a l

proceeding.

4

Indeed, t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n Rule 588 t h a t p u r p o r t s t o

c o n t e x t u a l i z e a

motion o r r e t u r n

o f p r o p e r t y

w i t h i n any

r i m i n a l

proceeding,

a s t

c l e a r l y

contemplates

a

4

Th e n t e r m e d i a t e

c o u r t h a s

x p l a i n e d t h a t

[ c ] i v i l f o r f e i t u r e s

are

the

i n re m

consequence

o r wrongdoing

p r e s c r i b e d by t a t u t e .

Property

i s

f o r f e i t e d

not

as

a r e s u l t o f

the

c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n ,

b u t through a

separate

proceeding,

c i v i l i n form b u t q u a s i - c r i m i n a l i n

n a t u r e [ . ]

Commonwealt h v . Perez,941 A.2d 778, 80 Pa. Cmwlth.

2008)

c i t a t i o n

o m i t t e d ) .

[J-68-2014][M.O.

aer, . ] - 4


5/5

motion

m a d e

even where

no r i m i n a l charges are i l e d .

As

uch, p p l i c a t i o n o f the 30-

day u r i s d i c t i o n a l

p e r i o d

a s

an

o v e r l a y

upon

Rule 588 s unsupported by the

r u l e s t e x t ,

h i g h l y a t t e n u a t e d , and c o n t r a r y t o the

general precept

t h a t l e g a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r

p r o p e r t y f o r f e i t u r e should be s t r i c t l y

construed.

SeeCommonwealt h v . 2,523.48 i n

U.S.

Currency,538 Pa. 551, 556-57,649 A.2d 658, 60-61 (1994).

F i n a l l y ,

remain

unmoved by the prospect t h a t the Commonwealt h may be

inconvenienced by not

knowing o r

a

p e r i o d

o f time

whether

t

w i l l

u l t i m a t e l y take i t l e t o

the

p r o p e r t y . I f

the

Commonwealt h wishes

o s e t t l e

t i t l e

w i t h o u t

w a i t i n g f o r

the owner o

f i l e

a Rule

588 m o t i o n ,

t h as recourse t o the F o r f e i t u r e A c t . Se e

42

a.C.S., Part I V ,

Chapter 68. U n t i l

f o r f e i t u r e

i s j u d i c i a l l y decreed,

the

Commonwealt h i s s t a t u t o r i l y

designated

as

the

c u s t o d i a n o f

the

p r o p e r t y , b u t

not the

owner. Se e42 Pa.C.S.

6801(d).

As o r

the present

case, t

i s

undisputed

t h a t the Commonwealt h

u l t i m a t e l y

decided n o t t o

pursue

c r i m i n a l

charges

a g a i n s t A l l e n . Thus, on t h i s r e c o r d , and

w i t h i n

the boundaries of the i s s u e presented t o t h i s C o u r t ,

s e e

supranote 3, the

Commonwealt h remained merely the c u s t o d i a n of the

m one y

t seized

from

A l l e n ,

as

e x p l a i n e d

above. I f

a

defendant

n su c h

circumstances i l e s

a

Rule 588

motion

f o r

the

r e t u r n

o f p r o p e r t y ,

s e e

no reason w h y

the moti on

should

not be

a d j u d i c a t e d

on

i t s

m e r i t s . would t h e r e f o r e vacate and remand t o

the common

p l e a s

c o u r t

f o r s u c h

an

assessment.

A c c o r d i n g l y , r e s p e c t f u l l y

d i s s e n t .

Madame

u s t i c e

Todd

o i n s

t h i s d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n .

[J-68-2014][M.O.

aer, . ] -

5

Commonwealth v. Allen, No. J-68-2014 (Dec. 29, 2014) (Saylor, J., dissenting)

Documents