## Facts

- Orlando T. Figueroa owned a 1979 Pontiac Trans Am and permitted his son to use it.
- In July 1982, the son and a friend, after drinking, broke into a parked Corvette, removed its “T-roof,” placed it in the Trans Am’s trunk, and drove away.
- A witness reported the theft; police traced the Trans Am to the Figueroa residence and found the stolen property in the trunk.
- The son was indicted and, as a first offender, was admitted into New Jersey’s pretrial intervention program.
- The Union County Prosecutor filed a summary civil forfeiture action under N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -9 and N.J.S.A. 2C:64-3, seeking forfeiture of the Trans Am as property used in furtherance of unlawful activity.
- The Law Division granted summary judgment ordering forfeiture to the county, without holding an evidentiary hearing on the owner’s claim that he was an “innocent owner.”
- The Appellate Division affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review to address whether forfeiture may constitutionally be applied to a blameless owner and whether summary judgment was proper.

## Issues

1. Whether the forfeiture statute may be applied to take property from an owner who lacked knowledge of the illegal use and did all that reasonably could be expected to prevent it.
2. Whether summary judgment was improper where the owner asserted an “innocent owner” defense creating disputed material facts.

## Decision

- The court held the forfeiture statute facially constitutional but construed it to include an “innocent owner” limitation to avoid unconstitutional applications.
- Property may not be forfeited from an owner who neither knew of nor consented to the illegal use and who took all reasonable steps to prevent that use.
- The court reversed the forfeiture judgment and remanded for a plenary hearing on whether the owner met the innocent-owner standard.
- Summary judgment was improper because the owner’s lack-of-knowledge and reasonable-prevention assertions raised genuine issues of material fact.

## Legal Principles

- Forfeiture statutes are strictly construed because they authorize significant deprivations of property, sometimes without a criminal conviction of the owner.
- To satisfy due process, forfeiture may not be imposed on an owner who was unaware of the prohibited use and was unable, despite reasonable efforts, to prevent it.
- Courts may construe a statute to avoid serious constitutional questions by limiting its reach to constitutionally permissible applications.
- Whether an owner qualifies as “innocent” is fact-dependent and may require evidence about foreseeability, control over the property, relationship to the wrongdoer, and precautions taken; such disputes generally require an evidentiary hearing rather than summary disposition.

## Conclusion

The court preserved New Jersey’s forfeiture scheme by construing it to protect truly blameless owners and required a plenary hearing when an owner plausibly claims lack of knowledge and reasonable efforts to prevent unlawful use, making summary judgment inappropriate.


State v. 1979 Pontiac Trans Am, 98 N.J. 474, 487 A.2d 722 (1985)