State high court clarifies property seizures in drug cases

Published 11:07 pm Thursday, September 3, 2009

SEATTLE — A state Supreme Court ruling in a Snohomish County case Thursday could make it more difficult for authorities to seize property used for drug dealing.

The high court overturned rulings that Stephne and Alan Roos of Bothell had to forfeit their vehicles because they should have known their son was using them during drug deals.

Everett attorney Pete Mazzone, who argued the case, said it is unclear if the 5-4 decision will affect past forfeitures, but Thursday’s ruling will clarify what property police can seize in the future.

“I think we’re going to see people start challenging these forfeitures around the state,” Mazzone said. “Maybe not a $500 car but if someone lost their house, that’s a different story.”

Mazzone’s clients argued that the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force didn’t have the right to seize their vehicles. The task force in 2005 moved to have a 2004 Nissan Sentra and 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle forfeited under state law that allows authorities to seize property used for drug dealing.

Their son, Thomas Erwin Roos, then 24, was caught four times over four months in 2005 with large amounts of drugs — including prescription pills, marijuana and cocaine. The dope, along with cash, was found in his parents’ two cars.

Snohomish County Superior Court and state Appeals Court judges held that the Rooses should have known their son was dealing cocaine and oxycodone in September 2005. The son had been convicted of delivering cocaine in 1998 at age 16, and he had been arrested earlier in 2005 for investigation of drug dealing.

Prosecutors argued that the Bothell parents had known about two of the arrests at least in July 2005, yet their son was driving the Chevrolet and Nissan in later arrests.

The convicted drug dealer’s parents contended that their son had been leading a “secret life,” sometimes going to their home and deleting voice mails and taking letters informing his parents about the drug dealing, according to testimony.

The state Supreme Court concluded that property owners shouldn’t be penalized for what they should have known. They have to have actual knowledge that their property is being used for drug trafficking, the court ruled.

“My clients are happy today. So am I. I always had a gut feeling that it’s wrong for parents to lose their property when there’s ample evidence that they didn’t know what was going on,” Mazzone said.