REAL ESTATE AND THE LAW : Owner Aware of Drug Activity Forfeits Home

Sheila owns the house where she lives with her husband, James. With the consent of James, Drug Enforcement Administration special agent David searched the home. In the bedroom he found several bags of cocaine, an electronic gram scale, inositol, cash, a funnel, sifter and grinder with drug residue on the top of the dresser, in a drawer and on a closet floor.

During the search, Sheila claimed she was unaware of the presence of narcotics in her home, which was then seized by the U.S. government under federal law.

Sheila claimed the “innocent owner” defense to avoid forfeiture of her home. In an affidavit she professed not to have been aware of or consented to any illegal drug activities in her home.

If you were the judge would you find Sheila is an innocent owner and her home should not be seized by the federal government due to illegal drug activity there?

The judge said no.

“To establish lack of consent, claimants must demonstrate that they did all that reasonably could be expected to prevent the illegal activity, once they learned of the illicit use of the property,” the judge began. “However, where an owner has engaged in willful blindness as to activities occurring on her property, her ignorance will not entitle her to avoid forfeiture,” he continued.

Where drugs and paraphernalia were discovered throughout the bedroom Sheila shared with James, the judge noted, they were in plain sight and she cannot claim ignorance of drug activities in the bedroom. Although Sheila may not have consented to the drug activity in her home, she cannot use the innocent owner defense and forfeiture of her home to the federal government is ordered, the judge ruled.

Based on the 1993 U.S. Court of Appeals decision in U.S. vs. One Parcel of Property, 985 Fed.2d 70.