Search and seizure of conveyance in which drugs unlawfully transported or possessed
Source:
Section 167.248 — Search and seizure of conveyance in which drugs unlawfully transported or possessed, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors167.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 167.247)
The decision of a court responsible for the trial of a criminal defendant to release a vehicle seized pursuant to this section to the defendant is not subject to collateral attack by the state. State v. A 1963 Corvette Auto., 10 Or App 630, 501 P2d 330 (1972)
A court responsible for the trial of a criminal defendant has concurrent jurisdiction over a vehicle seized pursuant to this section to decide the forfeiture question. State v. A 1963 Corvette Auto., 10 Or App 630, 501 P2d 330 (1972)
A vehicle may be forfeited under this section if the owner had knowledge that it was transporting contraband; the owner need not be convicted of possession of the contraband. Blackshear v. State, 17 Or App 364, 521 P2d 1320 (1974)
The state is not required to move for forfeiture in the criminal proceeding but rather may choose to proceed on a separate civil action. State ex rel Haas v. Ore. 1965 Ford Auto., Ore. License No. HBH029, 19 Or App 879, 529 P2d 410 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
Where vehicle was seized pursuant to this section forfeiture took effect immediately, and thus attempted subsequent transfer of lien interest in the vehicle could not prevail. State v. Crampton, 30 Or App 779, 568 P2d 680 (1977) Sup Ct review denied
Where state produced no evidence to support finding that automobile confiscated in connection with search of defendant’s home, where illegal drugs were discovered, was used for unlawful transportation of narcotics, state had no right to automobile. State v. Glascock, 33 Or App 217, 576 P2d 377 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Police letter to defendant’s home, which was mailed on same day as state’s ex parte motion to confiscate automobile was granted, and which did not inform defendant of time or place of hearing to be held on confiscation of his automobile, was insufficient as notice. State v. Glascock, 33 Or App 217, 576 P2d 377 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant, arrested with cocaine in motor vehicle, was entitled to jury trial on issues of unlawful transportation or concealment of controlled substances and such use of vehicle by or with knowledge as vehicle owner. State v. Curran, 291 Or 119, 628 P2d 1198 (1981)
Law Review Citations
Under former similar statute (ORS 167.247)
25 WLR 456 (1989); 69 OLR 170 (1990)