United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Court to Grandma: You Shouldn't Lose Your House Just Because Your Dumb Son Sold Some Weed There
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2017/05/30/ ... grandma-you-shouldnt-lose-your
Published: May 30, 2017
Author: C.J. Ciaramella
Post Date: 2017-05-31 09:12:25 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6137
Comments: 20
Four years after the Philadelphia District Attorney seized her house without ever charging her with a crime, a 72-year-old grandmother has prevailed at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where justices strengthened protections for property owners against civil asset forfeiture. In a unanimous opinion issued last Thursday, the Philadelphia Supreme Court tightened the rules for seizing property, ruling that, although police and prosecutors have the authority to take property used in illegal activities, there must be clear evidence that the property owner knew of and agreed to the crimes. Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize property suspected of being connected to a crime, even if the owner is never convicted and charged. This extends to situations where the property owner is not even involved in the alleged crime, such as a mother whose son catches a DUI while driving her car, or, in the case at hand, a grandmother whose son is arrested for selling $140-worth of marijuana to an undercover cop. The court also said that "grossly disproportional" seizures may violate the Eighth Amendment's protections against excessive fines. "The amount of forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish," the court wrote. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on more details of the case: The ruling, issued late Thursday, came in the case of Elizabeth Young, a 72-year-old grandmother from the Cobbs Creek section of West Philadelphia, whose house and minivan were seized by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office in 2013 after her son was arrested for selling small amounts of marijuana there. Young contested the seizure, but Common Pleas Court Judge Paula Patrick ruled in favor of the DA's Office, finding that Young had ample knowledge of her son's activities because the police had searched the house and seized drug paraphernalia, but the drug dealing continued. "I am glad that this has come to some kind of conclusion," said Young, who has been out of the house since 2013 and is currently living in Yeadon. "I am glad that I will be here to see this thing cleared up. I never did anything wrong and I have been out of my house long enough." [...] The Supreme Court decision upheld a December 2014 opinion by Commonwealth Court, a mid-level appeals court in Pennsylvania, overturning the seizure. The Supreme Court sent the matter back to the trial court for further review, which means there is no timetable for when Young will be able to return to her house. A team of lawyers at Center City's Ballard Spahr represented Young pro bono. Young is far from the only person to have her house seized by the Philadelphia D.A. for a minor drug crime that she didn't even commit. In 2013, Philadelphia police seized the house of Christos and Markela Sourovelis after their son was arrested for selling $40-worth of drugs outside of it. The Sourovelis' sued, with assistance from the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm that has challenged asset forfeiture laws in several states. The Sourovelis' plight drew national media attention, and the Philadelphia D.A. eventually dropped the case. However, the city is still facing a class-action lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice challenging its asset forfeiture program. According to the firm, Philadelphia has seized more than 1,000 homes, 3,000 vehicles and $44 million in cash over 11 years. Between the new legal standard issued by the Supreme Court, the looming lawsuit, and a potential reformer leading the district attorney's office—Democratic Philadelphia D.A. candidate Larry Krasner vowed to rein in the program in an interview with Reason earlier this year—the salad days of Philadelphia's asset forfeiture machine may be ending. The Philadelphia police officer who coordinated the undercover marijuana buys at Young's house pled guilty and was sentenced in 2015 to three-and-a-half years in federal prison on corruption charges involving planting drug evidence on suspects. Poster Comment: The Philadelphia police officer who coordinated the undercover marijuana buys at Young's house pled guilty and was sentenced in 2015 to three-and-a-half years in federal prison on corruption charges involving planting drug evidence on suspects. Now there's a shocker!!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
First of all, since when does the judicial branch write the rules? We have a legislature that does that. Second, what can be clearer evidence that "the property owner knew of and agreed to the crimes" when Common Pleas Court Judge Paula Patrick found that Young "had ample knowledge of her son's activities because the police had searched the house and seized drug paraphernalia, but the drug dealing continued". You're running and profiting from a drug house, grandma, and you knew the rules of the game.
Since 1803.
"Marbury v. Madison" established that the court interprets the Constitution. It can declare that a law violates the Constitution, but it cannot rewrite the law (John Roberts excluded, of course). In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that "Knowledge does not establish consent". Seems to me that the only thing that would convince this court is a written statement from her giving consent.
Knowledge does not establish consent. Case closed - go to cry in your room kiddo.
Courts routinely interpret the law. This one did, and this is now the law. That's our system. Lots of people don't like our system. But it remains our system nevertheless.
So I guess the court engaging in legislative actions is only wrong when they rule against the state. I believe drug paraphernalia is only illegal when associated with actual illegal drugs. Though perhaps someone here will explain that's not true. From the article it seems Young's alleged knowledge of criminal behavior is not at issue in this ruling. That Young may have known about the dealing isn't important. What's important is that the seizure of her house and car was constitutionally unbalanced with the supposed wrong of her allegedly knowing about the criminal activity and failing to do something to thwart it (though it's unclear what that something should have been). There is the 8th Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments (though I suppose it could be argued that while seizing her home over a small amount of marijuana might be cruel, it was certainly not unusual).
A court engaging in legislative actions is wrong every time they do it.
Yes, but not for the reason you cited. The court ruled that knowledge of criminal behavior is not at issue in this ruling because knowledge is not consent -- that even if she knew her son was dealing drugs the prosecution did not prove she gave her consent. In my opinion, she did nothing to stop it. Therefore the consent was implied. "What's important is that the seizure of her house and car was constitutionally unbalanced" According to the court, the allowable penalty for him dealing drugs was $80,000. That cash penalty exceeded the value of the house and car combined. So it was not an excessive fine.
Glad to hear it.
That's pretty much in the same ballpark as what I said. What should she have done? Spanked him? I assume you mean the statutory limit of the fine is $80k, and the lower court thought that was just peachy for possessing and selling plants. Well, apparently the upper court disagrees.
Yeah. What you said. "and the lower court thought that was just peachy for possessing and selling plants." If he had a record of dealing drugs (which he did), then the statutory limit was appropriate.
No, it was not, and is not appropriate. But it wasn't imposed on him anyway. It was imposed on a relative, not for something she did, but because of something she did not do, which was basically volunteer police work.
Nope. As a matter of constitutional law in the state of Pennsylvania, in this case the statutory limit was not approrpriate.
Marijuana laws in Pennsylvania from the NORML website: Sale of less than 1,000 pounds is a felony punishable by up to 3 years in jail and a $25,000 fine. If the offender has a prior drug conviction, then the sentence is 3 years and the fine will be $25,000. The court is authorized to increase the fines beyond the maximum to exhaust the proceeds of the crime.
So she wasn't profiting from her son's drug dealing? He wasn't paying rent? Buying groceries? Paying utilities? She knew he was dealing drugs from her home and did nothing.
By that standard, the local convenience store & gas station owners were also responsible, as they were benefiting from selling things to the kid which he paid for with drug money. You have no idea whether she condoned and encouraged it or gave the kid a piece of her mind condemning it every evening, or if she was afraid of her grandson, or if in fact she did "nothing". You have no idea at all, so you should cut the BS.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, not NORML, and not Stormfront, determines which law applies, and how.
Lex dura, sed lex.
"Ipsa this, you pissy little bitch."
NORML was referencing Pennsylvania law.
"... the Philadelphia Supreme Court tightened the rules for seizing property, ruling that, although police and prosecutors have the authority to take property used in illegal activities, there must be clear evidence that the property owner knew of and agreed to the crimes."
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
First of all, since when does the judicial branch write the rules?
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
"Since 1803."
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
Seems to me that the only thing that would convince this court is a written statement from her giving consent.
#5. To: misterwhite (#3)
"Marbury v. Madison" established that the court interprets the Constitution. It can declare that a law violates the Constitution, but it cannot rewrite the law (John Roberts excluded, of course).
#6. To: misterwhite (#1)
First of all, since when does the judicial branch write the rules? We have a legislature that does that.
Second, what can be clearer evidence that "the property owner knew of and agreed to the crimes" when Common Pleas Court Judge Paula Patrick found that Young "had ample knowledge of her son's activities because the police had searched the house and seized drug paraphernalia, but the drug dealing continued".
#7. To: Pinguinite (#6)
"So I guess the court engaging in legislative actions is only wrong when they rule against the state."
#8. To: Pinguinite (#6)
"From the article it seems Young's alleged knowledge of criminal behavior is not at issue in this ruling."
#9. To: misterwhite (#7)
A court engaging in legislative actions is wrong every time they do it.
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
Yes, but not for the reason you cited. The court ruled that knowledge of criminal behavior is not at issue in this ruling because knowledge is not consent -- that even if she knew her son was dealing drugs the prosecution did not prove she gave her consent.
In my opinion, she did nothing to stop it. Therefore the consent was implied.
"What's important is that the seizure of her house and car was constitutionally unbalanced"
According to the court, the allowable penalty for him dealing drugs was $80,000. That cash penalty exceeded the value of the house and car combined. So it was not an excessive fine.
#11. To: Pinguinite (#10)
"I assume you mean the statutory limit of the fine is $80k"
#12. To: misterwhite (#11)
If he had a record of dealing drugs (which he did), then the statutory limit was appropriate.
#13. To: misterwhite (#11)
...then the statutory limit was appropriate.
#14. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite (#13)
"Nope. As a matter of constitutional law in the state of Pennsylvania, in this case the statutory limit was not approrpriate."
#15. To: Pinguinite (#12)
"But it wasn't imposed on him anyway. It was imposed on a relative, not for something she did, but because of something she did not do, which was basically volunteer police work."
#16. To: misterwhite (#15)
So she wasn't profiting from her son's drug dealing? He wasn't paying rent? Buying groceries? Paying utilities?
She knew he was dealing drugs from her home and did nothing.
#17. To: misterwhite (#14)
#18. To: misterwhite (#15)
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
Lex dura, sed lex.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, not NORML, and not Stormfront, determines which law applies, and how.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]