Need some help with identifying the year of this 4 speed transmission I have on. Dxcplexe 32 bit. The last 2 number on the case under the kicker are the year?
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: MICHAEL D. GUOLEE, Judge. Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Curley, JJ. Depies appeals from an order for forfeiture and judgment requiring that Depies’s motorcycle be forfeited to the City of Milwaukee Police Department in accordance with §§ 342.30(4)(a) and 973.076, Stats. Depies claims the trial court erred in ordering the forfeiture because the motorcycle had a proper Vehicle Identification Number and because the State failed to prove its case.
Because the trial court did not err in ordering that the motorcycle be forfeited, we affirm. BACKGROUND On September 3, 1995, Milwaukee Police Detective Peter Simet was patrolling the area of Lincoln Avenue and South 5th Street in Milwaukee when he observed Depies riding what appeared to be a Harley Davidson motorcycle with the license plate “D HOG.” Simet approached Depies and asked for his driver’s license, which Depies could not produce because it was either revoked or suspended. When Simet ran a check on the license plate, he discovered that the vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned to the D HOG plate was supposed to be an STD engine, not a Harley Davidson. The VIN was 19257276. Simet testified that the registration that Depies produced did not match the make of the cycle.
The registration indicated that the cycle was an STD, but Simet testified the cycle was actually a Harley Davidson. Simet examined the motorcycle and observed that the frame number had been ground off, that the VIN number was hand-stamped on the engine case, which is not consistent with the manner in which STD puts on a number, and the number on the front fork assembly and the crank case had been welded over and ground off. In further examining the cycle, Simet noted that the numbers that had been obliterated were all in places that Harley Davidson puts identification numbers. He also observed that the transmission appeared to be a Harley Davidson transmission, but the identification number on the transmission had been welded over and ground off. Simet also found that the cycle did not contain certain features that are utilized by STD, such as a raised STD emblem. He also found that two stickers required by federal law, one called a federal certification label and one for emission control, had been removed. Based on all of these observations, Simet concluded that someone had gone to great lengths to remove from the cycle all numbers that could identify it.
He testified that the only reason to remove these identifying numbers was to conceal a stolen vehicle. Simet indicated that as a result of his investigation, the motorcycle was seized and forfeiture proceedings were commenced. In addition to Simet’s testimony during the forfeiture proceedings, the trial court also heard testimony from Depies and Depies’s witness, Kendall Thistle.
Thistle testified that in 1982, he built the vehicle himself from parts he bought at various swap meets and from dealers. Thistle testified that after he had assembled the cycle, he took it to the Wisconsin State Patrol for inspection and that they issued him a serial number for a “homebuilt” motorcycle. Thistle personally stamped the number on the STD engine casing. Thistle did not produce any records of the purchases of the parts or records from the State Patrol. He also testified that he did not know that all of the identification numbers had been removed. Thistle testified that he registered the motorcycle with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and received a VIN number, which he stamped on the STD engine casing.
He also received a license and title. Depies testified that he purchased the motorcycle from Thistle in 1992 and properly registered and obtained title to the vehicle through the DOT. The title indicates the make of the vehicle as “homemade” and the VIN is 19257276. Depies testified that he was not aware that all of the identification numbers had been removed. The trial court found Depies and Thistle’s testimony to be incredible. It found that Simet’s testimony was credible and that the State had satisfied its burden of proving that the motorcycle contained numerous unidentified parts, and that were therefore, presumed to be contraband.