Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
News (Media Awareness Project) - US NC: Brunswick To Appeal Money Decision
Title:US NC: Brunswick To Appeal Money Decision
Published On:2002-01-03
Source:Wilmington Morning Star (NC)
Fetched On:2008-01-25 00:55:31
BRUNSWICK TO APPEAL MONEY DECISION

The Brunswick County Sheriff's Department is submitting its written
arguments this week in an appeal to a Superior Court decision that
ordered the department to return money confiscated during a drug raid.

County Attorney Huey Marshall, who is filing the appeal, said the
confiscated money was given to the Sheriff's Department through a
federal program, and the decision should supercede the state's.

"What the Sheriff's Department conducted was a lawful act," Mr.
Marshall said. "They have every right to keep that money."

Ernest Hill and Morris Hill, who are not related, had money taken
from them during separate drug raids at their homes in late 2000.

Both were charged with drug possession, according to court documents.

The Sheriff's Department confiscated suspected drugs and more than
$4,000 each from Morris Hill's Longwood home and Ernest Hill's
Shallotte home, contending the cash was obtained through drug
transactions.

Drug possession charges on both were dropped in May.

Roy Trest, lawyer for both men, said the Sheriff's Department was
unable to obtain lab results proving the substances they collected
were actually drugs.

However, shortly after the arrests, the Sheriff's Department
forwarded the money to the U.S. Marshal's Office, where the U.S.
Attorney's Office funneled the funds through forfeiture proceedings
under a federal statute, according to court documents.

The program determined the money was drug related, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Trest said. The Sheriff's Department kept 80 percent, according
to court documents.

Mr. Trest contended the money belonged to Morris Hill's wife and that
Ernest Hill was gainfully employed. The Superior Court ordered the
Sheriff's Department to give the money back.

The decision stated that while there seemed to be a conflict between
federal and state statutes, the Sheriff's Department was violating a
state statute by failing to safely maintain the property it seized.

The court also stated the Sheriff's Department lacked the authority
to forward the cash to the U.S. Marshal's Office.

Mr. Marshall said he is arguing that the Sheriff's Department only
used a federal procedure that was available to it.
Member Comments
No member comments available...