Posted on 06/28/2007 12:19:43 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
BRANFORD – A federal appeals court has upheld a decision that a former Branford High School teacher has to forfeit interest in his local home to the government, but decided that his wife shouldn't have to because she wasn't actively involved in her husband's marijuana cultivation.
Harold Von Hofe and his wife, Kathleen, were charged in 2001 after police raided their 32 Medley Lane home and found 65 marijuana plants, glass smoking pipes and other items associated with the cultivation of marijuana in the house's basement.
The Von Hofes ultimately resolved their criminal cases in state Superior Court. Harold Von Hofe pleaded guilty to manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, and Kathleen Von Hofe to possession of a controlled substance. Both avoided prison time and received suspended sentences and probation.
The federal government moved to seize their property, a ranch home valued at $248,000. The couple has lived there since 1979, and doesn't have a mortgage on it.
In 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz determined that the federal government's seizure of the home did not violate the Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines. The couple appealed to the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. In a decision issued Wednesday, it agreed that Harold Von Hofe should have to forfeit his half interest in the home, but determined that Kathleen Von Hofe should not have to forfeit her half interest.
"Kathleen Von Hofe bears minimal blame for the criminal activity that occurred at 32 Medley Lane," the appeals court decision states. "The record is devoid of any evidence indicating her use of drugs or her involvement in any criminal activity whatsoever."
(Excerpt) Read more at nhregister.com ...
Libertarians will have the opposite.
A crime is a crime but does the punishment fit the crime? That’s the real question.
From the article: “In 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz determined that the federal government’s seizure of the home did not violate the Eighth Amendment protection against excessive fines.”
I’d say it does.
You agree with every judicial decision?
Every time the government takes your stuff for doing something didn’t harm anyone else, the statue of liberty kills a kitten.
So... Lady Liberty is a Libertarian?
I assume so.
All of the complaints against the welfare system are equally applicable to the criminal justice system. It is a bloated bureaucracy and attendant “service providers.” It continues to feed itself by trapping people for minor offenses that shouldn’t be prosecuted, and extracting fees and costs as a form of taxation, with failure to pay being punished by loss of freedom). And it has been just as effective in stopping serious and violent crime as the welfare system has been in ending poverty.
This is just another example.
Isn't this just sorta Kelo in another disguise?
Govt takes private property, presumably for the betterment of the community.
You know, I have no problem with LEO’s seizing a car used to smuggle dope. And if a home was bought with money from the sale of illegal dope, then OK, seize it also.
But these folks have lived in this home since 1979!
Jeez!
The issue that libertarians have is with civil asset forfeiture, imposed without having obtained any criminal conviction, or imposed leglislatively after the fact on all those who have prior convictions (the latter is an example of an Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.)
Libertarians also assert that the Federal Controlled Substances Act is Unnconstitutional, since criminalization of the possession of a substance is not one of the Federal powers enumerated in Article I, section 8 (and no, the Commerce Clause doesn't do it.)
When the federal government finally determines a way to collect tax on a product, and at the same time eliminate competition from which they can't collect a tax, the legalization of marijuana (or any substance) will be immediate.
Don't smoke it, never had a reason or desire to, but this is in the same category as government's war on alcohol.
How the hell does that entitle them to take the house?
But even in these cases where you don’t mind them seizing cars, there are still big problems with the seizure laws. First, sometimes the owner of the car doesn’t know its being used illegally. Most importantly, though, when the police can make money by seizing stuff, they have an incentive to skirt the rules.
If you ask me, the police should not receive the proceeds of their seizures (which usually they do).
They should have to give the stuff to charity for NOTHING in return.
Hardly. Re-read my post. I said this one violates the Eighth Amendment.
This is called tax-farming. It’s the modern day version of the medieval King sending his hiway men to confiscate your property and rape your women. If one supports this, well one is nothing more than a stateist in the tradition of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, et.al.
You're very generous with my tax dollars.
Seized assets means less taxes collected by local LEO's.
I agree with you — my comment referred to the judge I quoted, where he said there was no Eighth Amendment problem. I said there was. I can see where you thought I was replying to Rhombus’ comment, in which case you’d think I meant the opposite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.