Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Commonwealth v. One 1994 BMW 318 IS Automobile
Citations: 67 Mass. App. Ct. 673; 855 N.E.2d 1152; 2006 Mass. App. LEXIS 1115Docket: No. 05-P-1201
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; November 1, 2006; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
John Tricoche appeals a judgment ordering the forfeiture of his 1994 BMW to the Commonwealth under G. L. c. 94C. 47(a), contending that the Commonwealth failed to prove sufficient grounds for forfeiture, specifically that the vehicle was not used in narcotic distribution nor was there prima facie evidence of its involvement on multiple occasions. The court affirms the judgment, relying on agreed facts. The Haverhill police had information about Deborah Costantino selling cocaine. Undercover Trooper Stephen Gondella arranged a purchase from Costantino, who subsequently contacted her dealer. Tricoche was observed parking his BMW near Costantino's apartment and was seen returning to his vehicle shortly after she exited. Following the transaction, marked money was found on Tricoche when he was arrested, and he later pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine. The law under G. L. c. 94C. 47(a)(3) allows for the forfeiture of conveyances used in drug-related activities. In such proceedings, the Commonwealth must establish probable cause for forfeiture, after which the burden shifts to the claimant to prove that the property is not forfeitable. The court found that the Commonwealth met its initial burden, affirming the forfeiture. Claimants can contest forfeiture of property used in illegal activities by demonstrating that their use falls under specific exceptions, such as lack of knowledge of the illegal use (G. L. c. 94C. 47(c)(3)). In this case, the judge found that the Commonwealth proved the BMW was used to transport cocaine, as it was observed driven by Tricoche to Costantino’s apartment, where a drug transaction occurred, and Tricoche had marked money from a drug purchase. Tricoche admitted to the vehicle's use for narcotics transport but argued that forfeiture was improper because the Commonwealth did not establish that the vehicle was used in an ongoing distribution business, which he claimed required evidence of distribution on three or more occasions. However, G. L. c. 94C. 47(c)(3) does not apply since Tricoche failed to provide evidence of lack of knowledge and the facts indicated his knowing involvement in the distribution. The statute's intent is to deprive criminals of tools used in illegal activities while also protecting innocent owners. Tricoche did not present facts to support an "innocent owner" defense, and the Commonwealth successfully met its burden of proof for forfeiture. The judgment was affirmed, noting that the Commonwealth's burden in this context is lower than that required for probable cause in criminal proceedings. G. L. c. 94C. 47(c)(3) specifies that a property is subject to forfeiture if the owner knew or should have known about its use in illegal activities, with multiple instances of illegal use serving as prima facie evidence of such involvement.