ADMISSION OF OWNERSHIP INTEREST.  Any person contesting an action for forfeiture must establish his or her standing as a true owner of the property subject to forfeiture.  People v. Grell, 950 P.2d 660 (Colo. App. 1997)

        The state must establish a nexus or connection between the asset and the nuisance.

        USE OF VEHICLES TO TRANSPORT STOLEN ITEMS - INSUFFICIENT NEXUS.  Defendant used a 1988 Mazda lawfully to drive to and from her job in a department store.  On two separate occasions was observed removing merchandise from the store without paying for it, then placed the items in her Mazda and drove away.  Such thefts constituted felonious conduct. The People, for the purposes of this proceeding, conceded that the theft was completed before defendant placed the stolen merchandise in her vehicle, but sought forfeiture under Colorado's Abatement of Public Nuisance Act, § 16-13-301 on the theory the Mazda aided and abetted defendant's illegal activity making it subject to forfeiture under CRS 16-13-303(2).  The facts and the evidence presented, when placed in context with concessions by the People, were inadequate to prove that the Mazda was sufficiently connected to the thefts to allow forfeiture under either § 16-13-303(1) or (2).  People v. One 1988 Mazda 323, 857 P.2d 569 (Colo. App. 1993)

        USE OF VEHICLE FOR COMMUTE TO MARIJUANA CULTIVATION - INSUFFICIENT NEXUS. Where there had been no activity, other than the cultivation of marihuana, carried on at an office location, and 3 affidavit asserted that: "I observed the trucks . . . being driven . . . to the dental office on several occasions." However, none of these affidavits alleged that either of the two trucks were involved in carrying any item either to or from the office where the marihuana was under cultivation, citing People v. Cerrone, 780 P.2d 562 (Colo. App. 1989) the court ruled the evidence was insufficient to establish a nexus. CRS 16-13-303(3)(b) which makes property acquired by the proceeds from unlawful activities forfeitable, this court held, as a matter of law, that the absence of proof that the property had a connection with criminal activity made its forfeiture improper. People v. Cerrone, 780 P.2d 562 (Colo. App. 1989).

        USE OF VEHICLE IN PROSTITUTION - FORFEITURE APPROVED.  Where defendant had telephoned an undercover police officer and solicited prostitution, then drove in the Volkswagen to the motel where the contract for prostitution was completed, the evidence established that the vehicle was used by the defendant in completing the crime of solicitation by driving to the motel for that purpose. A sufficient nexus had been established linking the car to the criminal activity. People v. 1979 Volkswagen, 773 P.2d 619 (Colo. App. 1989) This case is similar to People v. Garner, 732 P.2d 1194 (Colo. 1987) in which the vehicle was used to transport marihuana.

        FORFEITURE - INFERRED NEXUS. By establishing that the items sought to be forfeited were used in the unlawful activity, the items were subject to forfeiture pursuant to CRS 16-13-303(2). Because the building in which the items were located was deemed a public nuisance, the trial court could reasonably infer that the use of the items seized was "connected or rationally related to" the unlawful activity. People v. Lot 23, 735 P.2d 184 (Colo. 1987)

        FORFEITURE - RELEVANT RULING. People v. Cerrone, 780 P.2d 562 (Colo. App. 1989)

        Defendants operated numerous lingerie modeling and massage businesses for the purpose of promoting prostitution. Trial court inferred that at least the items of personal property were purchased with proceeds from <prostitution> because it found no legitimate source of funds for these large cash purchases. No evidence was presented, however, to trace any of the real or personal property in question here to illegal proceeds.

        FORFEITURE OF ASSETS PURCHASE WITH PROCEEDS TRACEABLE TO NUISANCE All proceeds traceable to certain illegal activities, including prostitution, are subject to a forfeiture. CRS 16-13-303(3)(b). If the property is not per se connected to the criminal activity, the

        People have the burden of establishing a nexus between the property for which the forfeiture is sought and the criminal activity. People v. McBeath, 709 P.2d 38 (Colo. App. 1985). The nexus required by the statute is that the items be proceeds traceable to the illegal activity.

        Defendants obtained the motor home in exchange for a vehicle and an amount of cash. There is no evidence in the record to connect this purchase to illegal proceeds accruing within one year prior to the filing of the complaint or at any other time. Traceability was not shown.

        The family home was paid for with other proceeds unrelated to the prostitution activities and was not used for any illegal purpose. Ruling: the home could not be seized. In an action to abate a public nuisance, only real property which has been used for the illegal purpose which is the underlying subject matter of the action is subject to forfeiture and seizure. CRS 16-13-314.

        STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. All forfeiture actions must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues. Section 13-80-103(1)(d). Consequently, the trial court was without authority to order a seizure of items as proceeds traceable to illegal activities conducted more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint. People v. Steinberg, 672 P.2d 543 (Colo. App. 1983). As the automobile, pickup truck, and boat with trailer were all purchased more than one year before the filing of the complaint, the trial court was without authority to order a seizure of those items.

        The primary defense would be that the State's proof failed to establish the activity defined as a nuisance, or that the State failed to establish a sufficient nexus (connection) between the asset and the nuisance.  If the state is seeking forfeiture based upon traceable proceeds, defendant may attack the audit trail.  If the state fails to file within the statutory time, jurisdictional arguments would naturally be raised.

        The requirement that defendant must establish his or her standing as a true owner of the property subject to forfeiture may be sufficient to cause acquiescence to forfeiture.  If criminal charges are pending or if the defendant is being investigated for possible future criminal charges, and if ownership or possessory  interest of the asset is a fact detrimental to the defense, a person may be in a position where it is best to default in the forfeiture action.  Ownership claim under oath would be admissible in any other lawsuit - civil or criminal.

        In the course of a forfeiture action, a defendant may or may not be able to negotiate re-purchase at a value less than fair market value.

        At the time of the first visit, a prospective client will be quoted attorney's fees and estimated costs. The quote will be honored for a period of seven (7) days, after which it is subject to change without notice if this office has not been retained.  Attorney is a sole practitioner with need to manage his caseload.  Pending proposed client acceptance and payment, retainer agreement proposals are subject to withdrawal.  Attorney reserves the right to decline any case.
 
        In most circumstances, attorney initially makes an option offer of 1.) billing to be upon hourly fees, or in the alternative, 2.) quote of a flat fee through trial court final hearing.  ELECTION. Offered fee options will be up to the client, however client's initial election will be final.
 
        Included in attorney's primary website is a web page devoted to clear definition & understanding of free first consultation, fees and costs, retainer agreement and terms of representation.  Additional information regarding fees & costs may be found via the links following potential quotes.

Thank you for considering my services; I appreciate your inquiry.