IF SON SINS, DO PARENTS PAY?

Yes, a Washington State Court Ruled in a Drug Case, Costing the
Couple Two Cars and Legal Fees.

SEATTLE - As drug dealers go, Thomas Roos was not very crafty. During
the summer of 2005, Roos, then 24, was arrested four times in four
months, usually passed out behind the wheel in cars loaded with drugs,
cash, cell phones, and a drug-dealing ledger.

He was so blatant, in fact, that drug investigators in Snohomish
County believed his parents should have yanked the keys to their cars.
When the parents didn't, the officers seized the vehicles under
drug-forfeiture laws.

That action led to an unusual question for the state Court of
Appeals: Should parents be punished for the actions of a wayward son?

Last month, the three-judge panel said yes, rejecting Alan and Stephne
Roos' argument that they were unwitting victims, and it all but
chastised them for not exercising more tough love.

The ruling cost the Rooses, of Bothell, their 2004 Nissan Sentra and
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle "muscle car," as well as more than $34,000 in
fees to fight what their attorney deemed a ruling that "stretches the
bounds of logic."

Warning Signs

"It says if you have a son or daughter that you suspect
may be involved in drugs, you better start snooping around and
following them around," said the attorney, Peter Mazzone of Everett.
"If you let them drive your car, you may very well lose your car."
There is no evidence the Rooses, who declined to be interviewed for
this article, were involved in drug dealing. But they ignored too many
warning signs to be victims, said Mara Rozzano, attorney for the
Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, which moved to seize the cars.

The trouble for Alan and Stephne Roos - a butcher and a dental
assistant - started in June 2005, a review of police reports and court
filings in the case shows.

Thomas Roos was found passed out in a car-wash parking lot in Lynnwood
in the Nissan with $21,406 in cash, methamphetamine, prescription
painkillers, and a ledger of drug sales. The car was impounded and
Roos arrested, but he intercepted a notice mailed to his parents and a
voice-mail message left at their house. The car was later released.

'Secret Life'

Roos, who has a 1998 juvenile conviction for drug
dealing, was unemployed, living at home, and leading a "secret life"
that included deleting voice-mail messages from his parents' phone
over the last two years, his mother testified. A month later, he was
arrested while driving a friend's car, and officers again found drugs,
cash and the ledger. His mother bailed him out and, after learning
about the previous arrest, told him not to drive the Nissan. His
father later testified that he had been "mad as hell" at his son, and
had bought steering-wheel locks for both cars.

Nonetheless, Roos was arrested twice more in the next two months,
passed out at the wheel and carrying large quantities of drugs, once
in the Nissan, once in the Chevelle. Officers found large stashes of
drugs both times and moved to seize both cars. Thomas Roos was
convicted of five drug-possession charges and served six months in
jail.

His parents went to court to try to get their cars back.

Drug-forfeiture laws, which are intended to take the profit motive out
of drug-dealing, exempt "innocent owners" from property seizures. But
that exemption does not apply to people who "stick his/her head in the
sand," the appeals court ruled.

"At a minimum, the information Alan and Stephne did possess, including
Thomas' past and present problems with drugs and his unemployed
status, would have led a reasonable person to further inquire into the
Nissan's use," judge Stephen Dwyer wrote.

"It's what a lot of parents fear, I know," said Rozzano, a deputy
Snohomish County prosecutor. "It wasn't just that he had drugs. It's
that he was using the cars to sell."

The cars sit in the Snohomish County sheriff's impound yard pending
any further appeals. If auctioned, the cars could fetch about $18,000
for the task force, which uses forfeited property to pay for its work.

Mazzone said the case should be appealed further, but was unsure
whether his clients could afford it.

"This is what this case stands for: Parents should be suspicious of
their kids," he said, because if they aren't, "they could lose their
possessions."