Whatever happened to "presumed innocent?

[johnrocks]

The government wants to seize the home of a widowed cancer survivor. She hasn't been charged with any crime, but her now-dead husband once grew marijuana on their property. He used it to ease his chronic pain. Under federal civil asset forfeiture law, that might be enough for the government to take this woman's home.:rolleyes:

http://www2.oanow.com/oan/news/local/article/ala._woman_fights_land_seizure_after_spouse_dies/95698/

A Chilton County woman is fighting an effort by federal prosecutors to seize her home and 40 acres in a marijuana case against her husband, who committed suicide during his trial.

Mara Lynn Williams, 56, a cancer survivor who works as a nurse at Jackson Hospital in Montgomery, said she knew that her husband, Royce, 53, used marijuana for chronic pain after multiple surgeries.

But she said she did not know he was growing it on their acreage, and she was not charged in the criminal case. Her husband was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot in a car in May as a jury was deliberating the drug charges against him.

Mara Lynn Williams said it is wrong for federal agents to seek to take her home, which she and her husband built, and about 40 acres that have been in his family for generations.

“It is not morally right. My husband has paid with his life. What else do they want?“ Williams told the Montgomery Advertiser in a story Sunday.

This isn't the "Land Of the Free" when this type crap happens but defend away:mad:

[pattyk]

oh this is horrible.

when the gov comes after you, you are powerless.

the police seize so much private property around here it's ridiculous.

and those monday morning sales meetings. charts and graphs on who brought in the most money in the last week.

they probably get a prize

[LouC]

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent?

You have never had your ID stolen if you believe that myth.

[LouC]

Alabama Bureau of Investigation agents discovered the marijuana while flying over it in a helicopter. The Advertiser said court records show that 408 marijuana plants were found on the property behind a school bus a couple of hundred yards from the house.

Authorities seized 10 firearms, $18,400 in cash, vehicles, computers and other belongings.

408 plants?

$18,400 in cash on hand?

Used pot for pain?

Sounds more like he was dealing to tide over those lulls in construction work.

Williams’ attorney, David Karn of Clanton, said the government will have to show that Mara Lynn Williams took part in the drug operation. Otherwise, she is protected by what is known as the “innocent spouse” rule, he said.

Hopefully it goes well for her under the innocent spouse rule.

[sircharliebrown]

This is why pot will never be legalized. The government makes far more money on it being illegal than they would if it were legal.

[RogerDodger]

“My husband has paid with his life. What else do they want?“

Apparently your home and 40 acres.

Everybody's got a sad story.

[LouC]

Apparently your home and 40 acres.

Everybody's got a sad story.

She had a nice selfish husband dump his world of **** all in her lap.

[johnrocks]

She shouldn't have to pay for his crime and besides, ahome and 40 acres! You gotta be kidding me!

[LouC]

She shouldn't have to pay for his crime and besides, ahome and 40 acres! You gotta be kidding me!

No there is no kidding.

If it is proven she was not complicit in his crime they should leave her alone.

However...

A nurse with a controlled substance abusing husband?

She is very lucky she has such a good employer.

Williams, who works as a nurse at Jackson Hospital in Montgomery, said her husband smoked marijuana because it helped ease the chronic pain he suffered following multiple surgeries.

"I didn't know he was growing marijuana. I knew he was smoking it. If I knew he was growing it, I would have made him stop," she said.

Williams said her husband tried a number of different medications for his pain, but nothing worked as well as the marijuana. She also said her husband did not sell the marijuana.

"My husband was not a marijuana dealer. My husband was in pain," she said.

Montgomery Advertiser Click LINK (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20090927/NEWS02/909270320/1009/rss04)


She didn't know he was growing it but she knows he wasn't selling it?

[johnrocks]

if you lose property to an asset forfeiture seizure you must prove your innocence in order to get it back
you have no 5th amendment protections -- even your silence can be used against you

[LouC]

if you lose property to an asset forfeiture seizure you must prove your innocence in order to get it back
you have no 5th amendment protections -- even your silence can be used against you

Like I said I hope if she is innocent the "innocent spouse" rule wins out for her.

It would seem that rule was put in place to protect the innocent in such a situation as this.

[johnrocks]

Like I said I hope if she is innocent the "innocent spouse" rule wins out for her.

It would seem that rule was put in place to protect the innocent in such a situation as this.

May find out soon.
http://onthedocket.org/cases/2008/alvarez-v-smith
The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the legal standard for a court hearing to test the forfeiture of property used in a drug crime

Six individuals whose property had been seized under Illinois’s Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA), brought a class action lawsuit, arguing that DAFPA violated their constitutional right to due process. They said the act permitted them to be deprived of their personal property, including vehicles, without any hearing for too long.

DAFPA allows police departments 52 days following the seizure of property to decide whether to recommend forfeiture of the seized property. During those 52 days, it is the policy and practice of the City of Chicago and to refuse to return the seized property.

Following the City’s 52 allotted days, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office have an additional 45 days to review the forfeiture recommendation of the Chicago Police Department. During those 45 days, it is policy and practice to refuse to return the seized property upon demand by the owner.

The plaintiffs in the case claimed that when property is seized under the Act, due process requires that they be given a prompt, postseizure, probable cause hearing, even though the DAFPA does not require any such hearing.

In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, the plaintiffs conceded that based on the decision by the Seventh Circuit in Jones v. Takaki, their complaint should be dismissed. It was. But they asked the appeals court to reexamine Jones in light of two cases that predate Jones but were not cited in that opinion.

Last May, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed and remanded the district court order.

On Feb. 23, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for review. The justices will hear oral arguments in the fall.

Question presented: Whether local law enforcement agencies may seize and retain custody indefinitely of personal property without judicial or administrative review of the lawfulness of the continued detention of the property.