WA Legal Roundup - Washington State Supreme Court
Myyyyyyy hooptie rolling, tailpip draggin'. Heat don't work and my girl keep naggin'!
Okay, so I haven't even read the case yet, but this is the image that my brain conjures up:
Of course, in reality it probably looked something like this:
And why do such thoughts conjure in my head? My first car was a 1972 Buick Skylark. I called it the General Lee because, while it was not a Charger, it was a beautiful orange color.
However, there was in my neighborhood an orange Chevelle. People confused us all the time. I'm still bitter. The General Lee eventually gave up the ghost, throwing a rod and busting a compression spring. After I had the header rebuilt and fixed it up with new rods and springs...well, it was never quite the same.
Back to the case. Ross owned two cars. Her son was using them to smuggle drugs. The cars were seized, the authorities arguing that she should have known the elicit purposes for which her cars were being used. Held: Should have known is not known. You have to prove actual knowledge if you are going to be excluded from the innocent owner definition.
The dissent (in part) would say that with the seizure of the first car, the parents gained knowledge that their cars generally were being used to deal drugs, and were essentially put on notice as to the second car. However, they don't get around that pesky problem of actual knowledge, even referring to it in their opinion as an inference.