Pubdate: Tue, 30 Dec 2014
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)
Copyright: 2014 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc
Contact:  http://www.philly.com/inquirer/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/340
Author: Chris Mondics
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

COURT RESTRICTS CITY USE OF CIVIL FORFEITURE

The Ruling Limits the Ability to Seize Family Members' Homes That 
Were Used by Drug Dealers.

In a potentially precedent-setting decision, a Pennsylvania appellate 
court has restricted the circumstances under which prosecutors can 
seize homes used by convicted drug dealers.

The 5-2 majority opinion by Commonwealth Court applies to homeowners 
who can show they had little or no involvement in the illegal 
activity. The ruling in the case involving a 69-year-old West 
Philadelphia widow, and the settlement of two seizure cases in a 
federal lawsuit Dec. 20, constitute twin setbacks for the city's 
civil forfeiture program.

The Commonwealth Court decision would establish sweeping new rules of 
evidence the city must meet if it is to prevail in some seizure 
cases. Those are cases involving parents or others who own homes used 
by drug dealers without the owners' knowledge or consent.

The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office has 30 days from the time 
of the Dec. 17 decision to appeal. The office did not respond to 
calls for comment on Monday.

Seizures of properties by law enforcement have caused an outcry 
across the country because such civil forfeitures can move forward 
even if the homeowner has not been criminally convicted.

"My sense overall is that this decision will ensure a more rigorous 
constitutional analysis," said Jessica Anthony, who led the team of 
pro bono lawyers at Ballard Spahr that filed the appeal and argued the case.

Anthony represented Elizabeth Young, a retired Amtrak employee whose 
home was ordered seized in 2012 after a Common Pleas Court trial in 
Philadelphia. The District Attorney's Office had instituted civil 
forfeiture proceedings against Young following the arrest of her son, 
Donald Graham, for dealing small amounts of marijuana there. 
According to the appeals court, the value of the marijuana Graham 
sold to undercover agents totaled no more than $190.

Anthony appealed, asserting that Young's Eighth Amendment protections 
against excessive fines had been breached.

In its 56-page majority opinion, Commonwealth Court said the 
lower-court judge, Paula Patrick, erred by failing to properly 
consider whether the house was instrumental in Graham's drug dealing.

The ruling pointed out that the police had directed informants on 
multiple occasions to go to the house to purchase drugs, but that it 
was never established at trial whether the bulk of the activity was 
occurring there.

The appeals court, noting that a neighbor had testified that the 
house was not known as a locus of drug dealing, said law enforcement 
cannot rely on general claims of the harmfulness of drug dealing to 
society. In such proceedings, they must show that there are impacts 
within the immediate vicinity.

In addition, the court said, authorities must show a forfeiture 
penalty bears some relationship to the seriousness of the offense. 
The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings 
consistent with the opinion.

On Dec. 20, the city announced that it had halted efforts to seize 
the homes of two plaintiffs in a widely publicized federal suit 
challenging the city's use of civil forfeiture laws in drug cases.

In agreements of dismissal filed in Common Pleas Court, the District 
Attorney's Office agreed to drop its cases against properties owned 
by Christos Sourovelis and Doila Welch as long as both owners took 
"reasonable measures" to ensure no further drug crimes occurred there.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom