SEIZED CAR DRIVES LEGAL DISPUTE

Case Illustrates How Arcane Matters Of Law Can Snowball

When a judge told a police drug task force to return 80-year-old Lillian
Dalton's Acura, she thought all she had to do was pick it up.

But before she could get her car, it took two rulings from a judge and cost
Skagit County $4,210 in fees because lawyers squabbled over how the case
should have been handled.

They just might continue the argument, even though Dalton now has her car.

The case of how an elderly woman got her car back offers a glimpse into the
arcane world of law, where sometimes well-meaning people can get caught up
in a drawn-out dispute over seemingly minor issues of procedure.

In fact, the case had little to do with whether Dalton should get her car
again. Instead, the argument was over how she should ask.

Dalton's car was seized in September 2002 when her grandniece was arrested
on charges of dealing drugs.

Drug task force investigators believed the niece, Lisa Dalton, used the
Acura to make the alleged deals, according to court documents. As a result,
they confiscated the car under state laws allowing police to seize property
in drug cases without having to wait for the people involved to be convicted.

Initially, Deputy Skagit County Prosecutor Gene Willett, who represents the
task force, had questioned returning the car. Although the car was
registered to Lillian Dalton, police believed the Acura was Lisa Dalton's
in all but name.

"There were girlie stickers on the car, all the grandniece's stuff and
nothing that was Lillian's, and Lillian has other cars," Willett said.

Still, Lillian Dalton owned the car, and she wanted it back.

State law directs people who are appealing forfeitures to make their case
in a civil process that begins with an administrative hearing.

The hearing involves an examiner, typically a prosecutor who has been
appointed by the task force. The examiner decides whether the property was
used in the alleged drug deal and whether the owner was involved.

The task force rarely holds forfeiture hearings. Just one or two of the 25
to 30 forfeitures made each year are contested.

Most of the task force's forfeiture cases are resolved through the county
prosecutor's office, said Sedro-Woolley Prosecutor Pat Hayden, who is the
task force's hearing examiner. But he didn't preside over Dalton's case
because she never had a hearing.

Willett said he didn't have time to schedule a hearing on the forfeiture.
So Lillian Dalton and her lawyer, Corbin Volluz of Mount Vernon, took the
case to Skagit County District Court so she could get her car back.

It was the method Volluz used to make that move that disturbed the prosecution.

Willett focused on the procedural issue of how the case was moved from an
administrative hearing to a courtroom.

He said the case should have moved by filing a "complaint." That legal
action is similar to filing a civil lawsuit and in recent years contested
seizures have been handled in that way.

Instead, Volluz filed a different type of legal action, called a "motion."

It was a strategic move for his client, Volluz said.

Had he filed a complaint as Willett wished, he worried that Dalton could be
put in a position of having to prove her case. By filing a motion, he
forced the prosecutors to prove theirs.

That prompted another legal loggerhead.

Under state law, Volluz said, the task force had 90 days to hold a hearing
or return the car.

Willett disagreed, saying the task force had 90 days to "commence the
proceeding" such as sending a letter to Lillian Dalton.

Meanwhile, Lisa Dalton had entered drug court. Prosecutors typically wait
until a person has successfully completed the program, including drug
treatment, before disposing of the seized property.

Ultimately, the task force never set a hearing date on the seized car. So
in January, District Court Judge David Svaren ordered the return of the
Acura because the 90-day limit had elapsed.

But Dalton's car wasn't immediately returned.

Three times, she asked the drug task force for her car. She was denied each
time.

Dalton returned to court and once again Svaren told the task force to
return the car. He did, and ordered the drug task force to pay $2,710 in
her lawyer fees. The task force complied and returned the car. But Willett
believed an important principle was at stake, and appealed Svaren's ruling
to Skagit County Superior Court. He was concerned the method Volluz used
could make it easier for accused drug dealers in future cases to retrieve
property.

On Aug. 14, Superior Court Judge Michael Rickert agreed with Svaren. By
then, lawyer fees had grown to $4,210.

"What I fought really hard was the court was not doing it correctly,"
Willett said. "By not having it done correctly, it tipped the whole thing
on its side."

Said Volluz: "It appears a district court judge and a superior court judge
didn't think there was a big issue here."

That money will come from cash seized by the task force in other drug
cases, unless Willett decides to take the matter before the state Court of
Appeals. He has about a month to decide.

"He better not. I'm getting sick of it," Dalton said. "I'm just a nervous
wreck."