Drugs They Should Appeal this Ruling
posted by on September 19 at 12:58 PM
But Alan and Stephne Roos might be unable to afford it. The couple already drained their savings paying lawyers, and the court upheld the forfeiture of their two cars. Excerpts from today’s lead story in the Seattle Times…
Drug investigators in Snohomish County believed [Thomas Roos’] parents should have yanked the keys to their cars. When the parents didn’t, the officers seized the vehicles under drug-forfeiture laws.That action led to an unusual question for the state Court of Appeals: Should parents be punished for the actions of a wayward son?
The three-judge panel this week said yes, rejecting Alan and Stephne Roos’ argument that they were unwitting victims, and all but chastised them for not exercising more tough love.
The cars sit in the Snohomish County sheriff’s impound yard pending any further appeals. If auctioned, the cars could fetch about $18,000 for the task force, which uses forfeited property to fund its work.
Mazzone [the Roos’ attorney] said the case should be appealed further, but is unsure if his clients can afford it.
Okay, these parents are naïve at best. But according to the “innocent owners” clause in Washington’s forfeiture law, prosecutors have to prove that the parents knew the cars were used to acquire drugs. The prosecutors didn’t do that. Instead, the judges’ ruling stated that the parents merely “knew or should have known that the vehicle was being used to acquire possession of controlled substances.” By this logic, we are all liable for what other people do with our possessions, whether we know or not. That’s a chilling precedent that the Roos family may be unable to challenge.
Even if the parents were complicit, turning the car’s auction proceeds over to the drug task force presents a conflict of interest. Conspiracy drug laws already cast a wide net over people who are only tangentially involved in a crime—or not involved at all. And this sort of financial reward – and ruling to affirm it – essentially encourages drug task forces to target working class people, who have enough money to own property but are too poor to defend themselves in extended court battles.
This has nothing to do with this post, but how is it not Slogworthy that Savage is no longer editor?
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/art/archives/122018.asp
Or did I miss the post?
Nothing new here. Police have been doing this for ages. It's one of the reasons the drug laws are sooo fucked up.
The evidence that they knew is simply that a reasonable person would have known. The judge isn't arguing that the law requires parents to adhere to some sort of higher standard, he's simply appealing to a very common juridical standard for a party being privy to an action: namely that a reasonable person presented with the evidence the individual was presented with would have known of the actions.
No, Dominic. Under the court's opinion, property owners lose their property when they know or should know that property is being used to acquire drugs. The parents in this case knew, before police officers seized either of their cars, that their son had been arrested several times, in one car or the other, and that drugs were involved in each of the arrests. The court just ruled that, based on that knowledge, the parents should have known that their son was using their cars to acquire drugs. Not a stretch at all.
That said, I don't disagree that the parents should consider appealing the case and making The State Supremes rule on the "or should have known" portion of the Court of Appeal's decision. The statute, on its face, clearly only requires "knowledge."
Band aid on a cancer patient. Administrative seizure needs to be completely done away with.
If this was the first offense, I'd have to agree ... but this was like the fourth time he got caught. His parents WERE informed by the police ... his dad even got clubs for the cars so the kid couldn't drive them.
als, what should the parents have done, kicked their child out of their home? Tied him up in the basement? I mean, they knew that on his trip from his bed to wherever he purchased his illegal drugs, he used not only their car, but their garage, their hallway, their living room, and probably their bathroom.
Just how can a concerned parent of a seemingly-drug-using child avoid having the police take everything the child touches and sell it at auction to fund more shake-downs?
Als @4, we seem to mostly agree. It's clear that is the court's interpretation, but affirming the seizure because the parents "should have known" is roughly akin to finding someone guilty while reasonable doubt still exists. Even though their son was busted before, they didn't necessarily know that he was continuing to use the cars for drugs. Parents are duped all the time by kids saying, "It won't happen again." And while it's darn likely the parents were aware, punishing them without the burden of proof is unjust. But more to my point, the ruling sets precedent that we can be held liable for other people's actions even in cases where we may have no knowledge of the crime. It should be appealed.
Police should only be able to seize the property when it is caught being used in a crime, not after the fact, or preemptively. I read the Times article, and I'm still not sure under what circumstances the cars were impounded.
It actually reads like the cars were impounded individually as a result of two separate busts. If that's the case, the parents should have reported the vehicles stolen, and they would have them back already, baring them being used as evidence during the trial.
It's tough in a parent-child situation. If I had loaned a friend my car, he/she then got it seized by police for using it in a drug transaction, I would go after the friend at fault, not the State. Not entirely analogous to this situation, because suing your kid is ridiculous, but then again, we're taking about a man in mid-20's, selling meth and scamming off his parents, not some teenage weed dealer.
Phil M:
1. This child was 24 years old when he was first arrested;
2. The parents' house and items therein are not subject to forefiture unless it/them was/were used for manufacturing, delivering, containing etc. controlled substances, of which there was no evidence in this case;
3. To answer your last question: don't let said child use any of their property when they know, think, suspect, or have a funny feeling that said child is involved in drugs. And look into treatment programs that allow involuntary admissions.
Dominic:
1. Sorry for the splitting of hairs, but the "reasonable doubt" standard doesn't apply to civil proceedings;
2. I agree that the state Supreme Court should review the Court of Appeal's ruling insofar as it puts the burden on property owners to prove that "(1) they did not know of the illegal use to which the vehicle was being put; (2) they could not have known of that illegal use based on the information before them; and (3) they could not have known of that illegal use based on the information available to them had they conducted an inquiry a reasonable person would have conducted under the circumstances[]" to take advantage of the innocent owner exception to the forefiture statute because the statute itself does not appear to require such a showing.
The legislature decided this one, defining:(b) KNOWLEDGE. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:
(i) he is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or
(ii) he has information which would lead a reasonable man in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9A.08.010
The definition of "knowledge" in RCW § 9A.08.010, the Criminal Code, does not apply to the "innocent owner" exception to the civil forfeiture statute (RCW § 69.50.505).
The court applied case law that adopted the "knew or should have known" objective standard.
From the opinion, available at http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=589431MAJ
"We do not believe that the legislature intended RCW 69.50.505(1)(d) to provide the benefits of the innocent owner exception to the vehicle forfeiture process to claimants who failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry, where such an inquiry would have revealed the existence of illegal use."
It seems to me that the proper policy decision would be to allow the "innocent owner" exception based on a _subjective_ showing that the owner was not actually aware.
Also, since this is a matter of statutory interpretation, the Legislature could fix this next session.
Or, here's a thought!
If your unemployed meth-head 24-year old son is living in your basement and driving your car - KICK HIM OUT!
Perhaps if these parents hadn't always been there to bail little Johnnies ass out of jail, he would have grown up.
"Son, have you rehabilitated you'self?"
This is not the first time that our state Court Supreme has pulled a shit-stained decision out of it's collective ass.
I sure wish the MEDIA would do a
BETTER VETTING JOB
when these Bozos go for election.
If you have any doubts about whether they should have known or not. You should read the court opinion here: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/58943-1.pub.doc.pdf
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).