MAY, J.
When a person is convicted of possession of marijuana, and a “motor vehicle was used in the commission of the offense,” the trial court
shall, in addition to any other order the court enters, order that the person’s:
(1) operator’s license be suspended;
(2) existing motor vehicle registrations be suspended; and
(3) ability to register motor vehicles be suspended;
by the bureau of motor vehicles for a period specified by the court of at least six (6) months but not more than two (2) years.
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-15(a). Adams argues he did not use a motor vehicle in the commission of the offense.
. . . .
Adams argues the phrase indicating suspensions should occur when a “motor vehicle was used in the commission of the offense,” Ind. Code § 35-48-4-15, is ambiguous. He asserts the statute does not make clear what role the motor vehicle must serve in the commission of the offense, nor does it define the nexus required between the offender and the motor vehicle. Ultimately, he urges us to hold the statute does not apply to him because he was a passenger in the car. We cannot agree.
We have interpreted a similar clause in Ind. Code § 34-24-1-1, which governs the seizure of vehicles or property used in certain crimes. That statute, in pertinent part, permits seizure of vehicles “if they are used or are intended for use . . . to transport or in any manner to facilitate the transportation” of certain controlled substances, stolen property, or hazardous materials. Ind. Code § 34-24-1-1.
Pursuant to that statute, we have held the transportation in a motor vehicle of one pound of marijuana for the purposes of committing Class A misdemeanor dealing in marijuana was sufficient to require a defendant to forfeit the vehicle. $100 v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1001, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. We have also held that statute permits a motor vehicle to be seized based on its use in the commission of a crime when the driver transported therein less than ten grams of cocaine. Cantrell v. Putnam Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., 894 N.E.2d 1081, 1085-86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Based on the similarities in the language used by the legislature in the two statutes, we interpret similarly the statute at issue in this case. Ind. Code § 34-48-4-15 requires only that the vehicle be used in the commission of the crime. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-24-1-1, we have held mere transportation of an illegal substance from one place to another is sufficient to demonstrate the vehicle was used in the commission of the crime of possession. See Cantrell, 894 N.E.2d at 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (vehicle used to facilitate the transportation when vehicle used to transport cocaine across state lines and back). We apply the same reasoning to the facts herein: marijuana was in the vehicle in which Adams was riding, and the vehicle was being used to transport the marijuana, thus Adams’ driving and registration privileges were properly suspended pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-48-4-15.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.