Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. ONE 1976 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS SUPREME (10/09/84)

decided: October 9, 1984.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLANT
v.
ONE 1976 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS SUPREME, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. One 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme No. A-37, Page 268, 1982.

COUNSEL

John O. J. Shellenberger, Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Eastern Region, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for appellant.

Christopher G. Furlong, for appellee.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges MacPhail and Colins, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 434]

Commonwealth appeals a Delaware County Common Pleas Court order dismissing a petition for forfeiture of an automobile and directing its return. We reverse.

On May 3, 1982, John P. Bell was arrested and charged with violating The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (Act).*fn1 At that time, a 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme which he owned,

[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 435]

    controlled and had in his custody, was impounded. The Commonwealth filed its petition for forfeiture of the vehicle eighty-two days later.

The trial court found that seizure of the vehicle and forfeiture was proper but that, due to the eighty-two day delay, Bell's due process rights were violated in that the petition for forfeiture had not been filed "forthwith" as required by the Act. We disagree.

This is a case of first impression. The issue is whether the petition for forfeiture, which was delayed eighty-two days, was filed "forthwith" within the meaning of the Act. Section 28(c) of the Act, 35 P.S. ยง 780.128(c), provides in pertinent part:

In the event seizure without process occurs, as provided herein, proceedings for the issuance thereof shall be instituted forthwith.

This Court has previously defined the term "forthwith" as it was used in the Vehicle Code.*fn2 "We never have construed the 'forthwith' requirement to fix an arbitrary time limit; rather, we have held that . . . compliance within a reasonable time is sufficient." Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Passerella, 42 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 352, 354, 401 A.2d 1, 2 (1979). "[A]bsent a showing of prejudice, the mere passage of time . . . is not sufficient justification to set aside the action . . . ." Department of Transportation, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.