From:"Leon Felkins" <leonf@perspicuity.net>
To:fear-list@mapinc.org
Subject:FEAR: Fwd: FTalk: A Question for Leon and/or the Group
Date:Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:53:34 -0600


*********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE  ***********

On 12/13/2003 at 8:11 AM Judith Loring <jloring@cybernet1.com> wrote:

Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights  http://www.fear.org/
FEAR also offers a low-volume announcements list and digests for all lists

12/12/03

Dear Leon and/or the Group--looking for some advice, hints, suggestions,
whatever:

I'm an attorney fighting a forfeiture case.  Facts are that the adult son
of my clients was found dead in a motel room.  Cops called and part of what
they did was to search the deceased's clothes and wallet.  Found some
(small amount) of drugs & paraphernalia as well as cash in his wallet. 
Amount varies from $4,500 to $4,832 to $5,000.  State filed suit to
forfeit, naming as defendants the deceased and his father, but not the
mother who is an heir at law as well as being a known claimant prior to the
filing of the forfeiture action.  I know I have several procedural
arguments but am wondering specifically if the cops needed or should have
obtained a search warrant before searching the deceased, his clothes, his
wallet, whatever.  They did get a warrant before searching his vehicle as
his parents refused consent and they were on the registration.

I'm thinking a search warrant should have been obtained prior to going
through the deceased's possessions, especially pockets in his clothes and
wallet, where the bills of money were found.  If so, then evidence should
be suppressed and returned to the family.

Cops also took and kept the wallet and a cell phone; did not mention in
their forfeiture action, but have not returned or offered to return those
items, though did return the vehicle after they searched it (and left a
couple of pills which my clients found later!)

I'm also thinking that when the forfeiture action was filed, it should have
been entitled State vs.. $ rather than State vs.. a dead guy and only one
parent.  Forfeiture actions are, I thought, to be "in rem", i.e. against
the property.  Is that enough of a technicality to get the whole thing
tossed out of court? At the time the state filed the complaint, it knew the
decedent was dead for crying out loud!  How does one sue a deceased person
on a forfeiture complaint?  And, because of his death, no criminal charges
were brought whatsoever.

(note: autopsy report claims "cocaine toxicity" was cause of death. 
Deceased didn't like cocaine, his drug of choice was more in the line of
heroin, but, in any event, I understand that to die from cocaine toxicity,
one would have to have huge amounts in one's system.  Here, the deceased
had numerous medical problems including a recently sprained and swollen
ankle, and death could also have been caused by cancer and/or a blood clot
breaking loose from the ankle injury.  What's the standard of proof -- or
whatever-- for a coroner to conclude cause of death being cocaine toxicity?
 Can that be challenged?  State appears to be using that as more
justification that the money was also dirty)

I do have 4 or 5 affidavits from parents and relatives tracing the $, was
not from drug deals, was on the deceased, who lived in New Mexico, drove to
Montana, to buy an automatic transmission truck, which would be easier for
him to drive given all his medical problems.  I really think I can win this
one and have filed a motion for summary judgment with, I think, enough to
now throw the burden of proof back to the state.  The forfeiture complaint
was very poorly written, probably a form our sheriff came up with. All it
does is recite all the facts of the cops finding the deceased, what they
did, etc., and then in the spot where it is supposed to say why forfeiture
is justified, there is an incomplete, hanging sentence:  "Forfeiture is
appropriate in that." is basically what is said.  And the cops rely on a
lot of hearsay, a supposed Crime Stoppers Tip and a confidential informant
with hearsay information which the State, at least so far, has refused to
disclose, to try to tie!
  the deceased in with a person who lived in this area.  The deceased had
not lived here for about 7 months, returned for a friend's wedding, brining
cash with him to buy a vehicle.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Thank you in advance.

Judith Loring
Attorney at Law
Stevensville, Montana  59870
jloring@cybernet1.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment: http://www.mapinc.org/temp/part6634.html

Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights  http://www.fear.org/
FEAR also offers a low-volume announcements list and digests for all lists
List update: mailto:owner-fear-talk@mapinc.org?Subject=FEAR-talk-update
List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-talk-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe


*********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE  ***********


******************************************************
FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists
List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe
Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest
******************************************************
[ Original View
 
 
Get Email | Message List | Compose | Folders | Address | Mailboxes | Options
Help | Sign Out | Comcast Home
 
]