FACTS: Thomas Roos used a Nisan registered to Alan and Stephne Roos, his parents. Thomas was arrested three times after police contacted him in the Nisan. During all three arrests, searches of the Nissan revealed large quantities of drugs, and Thomas was charged with various drug offenses. Stephne and Tom knew of at least some of the charges and about at least some of the drugs police found in the Nisan.

After Thomas’ third arrest in the Nisan, the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force (SRDTF) seized the Nisan pursuant to RCW 69.50.505, which allows the State to take ownership of "vehicles. . .which are used. . . in any manner to facilitate the sale, delivery, or receipt of controlled substances." The statute does, however have an innocent owner exception, which prohibits forfeiture of a vehicle if the owner of the vehicle can establish lack of "knowledge or consent" to the activities that would otherwise justify the forfeiture.

Thomas was then arrested in Chevrolet registered to Stephne, and a search of the car revealed drugs. The SRDTF seized the Chevrolet pursuant to RCW 69.50.505.

Alan and Stephne contested the seizure of both cars at an administrative hearing and then in Superior Court, losing both times.

ANALYSIS: On appeal, Alan and Stephne argued the innocent owner exception applied to them and prohibited the State from taking their cars. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Noting that the claimants asserting the innocent owner exception have the burden of showing that exception applies, the Court of Appeals held that "a claimant may not successfully invoke the innocent owner exception to prevent forfeiture of a vehicle where the claimant knew or should have known that the vehicle was being used to acquire possession of controlled substances."

The "knowledge" required for the innocent owner exception to apply includes not only what the owner actually knew, but also what she could have known based on the information before her or based on the information she would have gained had she made a reasonable inquiry into the vehicle’s use.

RCW 69.50.505 subjects vehicles to forfeiture if they are used "in any manner to facilitate the sale, delivery, or receipt" of drugs. Alan and Stephne argued that the inclusion of the word "receipt" was meant to subject to forfeiture only cars that are used to receive drugs WITH AN INTENT TO FURTHER SELL OR DISTRIBUTE THEM. The Court of Appeals again disagreed and found the inclusion of the word "receipt" "subjects to forfeiture vehicles that are used to acquire controlled substances, regardless of the purpose for which the controlled substances are acquired." While vehicles used by people in mere possession of drugs are not subject to forfeiture, vehicles used to acquire drugs are subject to forfeiture. Accordingly, if an owner knows her car is being used to acquire drugs, the innocent owner exception to forfeiture does not apply.

Noting that their role was to review the factual findings from the administrative hearing to determine if they were supported by substantial evidence, a standard highly deferential to the original fact finder, the judges of the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that the innocent owner exception did not apply to Alan and Stephne.