82 Year Old Widow has Home Seized for Son's sins.

Associated Press | 1-11-02 | Associated Press

[LloydofDSS]

Jan 11, 2002 Widow's Home Seized After Son's Arrest for Drug Possession The Associated Press ATHENS, Ga. (AP) - Police have seized the house of an 82-year-old widow because they say she knew her son dealt drugs there and did nothing to stop him. Fannie Gresham's small home was seized Thursday under a state law allowing authorities to confiscate property linked to the illegal drug trade. Authorities also arrested her 50-year-old son, Tommie "Top Dollar" Gresham, on a drug charge after he allegedly dropped several rocks of crack cocaine and fled. Police records show 29 incidents of drug activity at the address since 1992 and authorities say drug dealers were caught numerous times fetching drugs from the house for street sales. Based on that, and police claims that the elder, widowed Gresham was helping her son's alleged operation, Superior Court Judge Stephen Boswell issued a court order in December allowing the seizure. Boswell gave Fannie Gresham 14 days to move her belongings. Her attorney, Jim Smith, likened the seizure to the widespread illegal taking of property and land from blacks that he says tarnishes America's past. "They have never seized any drugs in this house. This lady is not accused of a single thing," he said. Police predicted more such seizures as they crack down on the drug trade in the city's troubled neighborhoods. A hearing on the seizure has been scheduled in February.

[Twodees]

Are you saying that an equitable punishment for failing to turn snitch for the government is the loss of one's property? According to the US Constitution, government does not have a just power to take someone's property without due process of law. If a prosecutor can simply say that someone is guilty and take his property, we have no Constitution.

[Twodees]

So now, this was a "crack house"? Where did you get that information?

[verity]

"But why do you think taxpayer money should be wasted stopping people from ingesting whatever they want into their bodies."

Because taxpayer money is used for rehabbing this worthless segment of society! Pay now or pay later! I'll pay for for the war!

[Capt.YankeeMike]

well at least you have given it some thought, we could have a dialogue at least. I am in favor of legalization and taxation of pot, but i draw the line on cocaine, amphetamines, etc. Most drug warriors (and counselors)make the mistaken assumption that "a drug is a drug is a drug" and that is just so far fetched its ridiculous. We use certain prescription drugs because of their SPECIFIC properties unique to that particular drug to cure a certain condition, why then do we equate pot with say, crack cocaine. Two totally different substances, with totally different reactions in the users......And yes, I am personally convinced that pot has medicinal properties.

[Wolfie]

I'll pay for for the war!

Nice to see someone admit that its not the tax dollars spent that bothers them, as long as the money doesn't go to actually helping somebody. Compassionate Conservatism strikes again.

[FITZ]

What you drug warriors always ignore is that there was no drug problem before doctors successfully monopolized drug dispensation with the new prohibition and that anyone that wants to buy an illegal drug can get one, prohibition or not.

What is funny where I live is there are so many poor people who can't buy illegal drugs even though they are plentiful around here, so they sniff aerosol paint and now the hardware stores have those locked up. I think if someone wants to ruin their brain that badly, they'll find a way so just let them but don't give them free health care for doing it. Just let them deal with the results on their own.

[Whilom]

How do they expect an 82 year old woman to stop her 50 year old son from dealing drugs?

The same way we expect any other law abiding citizen to stop criminals from dealing drugs: drop a dime on them.

[Polybius]

So now, this was a "crack house"? Where did you get that information?

Where did you get the information that I was calling this house a crack house?

As I have posted several times on this thread, I was addressing the only the initial comment that an elderly person is automatically powerless against a younger and stronger person. Period. That's it.

That is a general concept and I have used general arguments and hypothetical examples.

In another post, I used the hypothetical example of an elderly woman whose husband is shot in a home invasion not being powerless if she still had a phone to dial 911. It shouldn't be too long before someone demands to know where I got the information that someone was shot at this house.

[Capt.YankeeMike]

I am in recovery. And I am not worthless. Husband, father, little league coach, taxpayer, valuable employee. My rehab cost you nothing. Most rehabs are not publicly funded. I paid for my own, and most do. If you are not qualified to speak on a subject, you should remain silent. The most sucessful rehab process ever is AA, and it is totally funded by members, we accept no outside contributions of any kind.

[MindBender26]

Isn't it better to hit the big operators and stop it cold before it gets to the 12 year old. When was the last time you heard of a multimillionaire put on trial for drug trafficking? Not lately. If you have to use thumbscrews on a little dealer to get to the next level, do it but get to the top. If banks have to be seized, do it and prosecute.r is idiocy.

I agree with much of what you say. The last multimillionaire drug dealer I remember was the one from LA that Clinton pardoned against all advice... except the advice from the Dem politicos.

[B Knotts]

In a primitive society, that claim may be true. In a civilized society, a 85 year old lady can pick up the phone, call the Police and, depending on the situation, can initiate the mobilization of a SWAT team.

And they still could have, and likely would have, seized her house.

There were still illegal drugs on the property, you know.

Oh, you thought this was about JUSTICE? Ha! It's about budgets.

[MindBender26]

#1.. Because the average age when a kid gets hooked is 12. Is a 12 year old able to make rational decisions that will drive the restof their lives? Is your 12 year old? Were you so qualified at 12?

I don't believe you can support this statement. I believe that it is false. From my experience, most people who get involved with drugs do so in their late teens and early 20's. A great many don't get involved until their 30's. Most drug dealers are users who invite other people to experience their joy and sell the drugs to finance their own habit.

#2 Because after the addict crashes their body, they want the taxpayers to fund their health care for the rest of their lives. Isn't it better to stop the problem in the first place?

This is our problem in self control, not the drug addicts. No one should be coerced to pay for someone else's self inflicted problems. The amount of mony paid for illegal drug caused problems is miniscule compared to that paid for problems caused by the use of alchohol and tobacco, which are small compared to the amount of taxes collected from their sale.

Unfortunately the facts show otherwise. Drug addiction, like tobacco addiction is most often aquired in the early teen years. Check DOJ, Mayo, DFAF or other studies. Regarding paying for health costs, you may not agree with it, but Medicare and Medicaid are laws of the land... and their costs are incredible.

[B Knotts]

While I am no WOD crusader and I feel that convictionless seizures are an abomination of justice, it should be mentioned that this woman had many chances to do something about her son's behavior.

Again: even if she had called the police herself, they would still have seized the house.

[MindBender26]

Stopping it in the first place would be great! Unfortunately, leaving addicts (and their families) pennyless doesn't seem to be working. Currently, our drug (and DUI) laws are basically cash cows for the state with very few judges looking favorably upon drug/alcohol treatment until someone has multiple offenses or worse. Of course, I can only speak from what I know from working with addicts/alcoholics in this area. I wish I knew the answer... but I have to say that what we are doing doesn't seem to be working.

Here in Florida we have a Drug Court program. Users are court-ordered to treatment, as opposed to jail. Costs very little but since it is court ordered, and if they resue, they go to jail, it works very well.. and is very inexpensive.

[MindBender26]

Much of what you say is correct. Once you decide to provide government healthcare, you have gone down a very slipery (and foolish) slope.

Regarding the supposed unconstitutionality of this action, it clearly is not. Unfortunately, the courts, (which decide these matters) have said it is legal. Rather than trying to interpret the constitution for ourselves, we need to elect legislators and officials, and get appointed judges who will move to ammend the COnstitution to outlaw such actions.

[Gritty]

Actually this is one drug warrior that won't. I don't believe in confiscation before a conviction. And that penalty should only be exercised after a jury agrees that it should. I do not belive in no-knock raids.

AMEN!, Brother.

[Cold Heat]

Interesting case.......but within the law. Let's see what else develops. Perhaps someone will keep us posted.

[Drew68]

Again: even if she had called the police herself, they would still have seized the house.

Possibly.

However, the outcry and bad publicity generated by doing as such might have made the officers think twice about a seizure and simply arrested the son on drug charges.