Washington appeals court: cops can take cars from parents of lawbreaking adult kids

[Woodmonkey]

Washington appeals court says cops can take cars from parents of lawbreaking adult children.


Carry on my wayward son, but without my car please. Especially after the Washington state Court of Appeals ruled that the parents of a 24-year-old drug dealer was a vehicular menace to society. The cops took a 2004 Nissan Sentra and ooooh, a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle. Wonder if it had the big block. Fellas, it's still impounded and might be up for action. Anyway, the Seattle Times has the whole story. It's worth linking to just to vicariously experience how a devious son can get away with living at home and deal drugs. Were the parents really that clueless? You decide. The court did.

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 parents' case shows.

Thomas Roos was found passed out in a carwash 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 was arrested, but he intercepted a notice mailed to his parents, as well as a voice-mail message left at their house. The car was later released.

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 past 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 he was "mad as hell" at his son, and bought steering-wheel locks for both cars.

Nonetheless, Roos was arrested twice more over the next two months, passed out at the wheel and carrying large quantities of drugs, once in the Nissan, once in the Chevelle.

The Source

Son is busted for drugs, but it's mom and dad who lose the cars

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, cellphones and a drug-dealing ledger.

He was so blatant about it, 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?

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

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

"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 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 parents' case shows.

Thomas Roos was found passed out in a carwash 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 was arrested, but he intercepted a notice mailed to his parents, as well as a voice-mail message left at their house. The car was later released.

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 past 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 he was "mad as hell" at his son, and bought steering-wheel locks for both cars.

Nonetheless, Roos was arrested twice more over 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 doesn't 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," appeals 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 fund its work.

Mazzone said the case should be appealed further, but is unsure if his clients can afford it.

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

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rfeit19m0.html

[Old Fart]

There is just NO WAY any parent (that really is one) can not know that their live at home kid is "dealing".
This kid has a track record of doing what he damn well pleases and obviously the father hasn't got the balls to just kick the Sh*t out of the punk or throw him out on the streets if he can't.
There no doubt has been an "authority" question in this family for all of this kid's life or he never would have reached this stage in the first place!

[cato2]

There are certain Dilemma's that a court faces when melding out justice.
Rights of the individual vs the common good
Equality vs discretion
To discover the truth or to resolve conflicts and finally,
Science vs the law.

The second and third one I think apply here. If the judge were to take the hard line and simply say, "he is guilty," then the kids is sentenced for the crime. If the judge were to apply the third, he would find that he could sentence the youth to the laws found in the book and be perfectly legal in doing so. But, where does that get anyone?

Discretion is what is needed here, a dose of reality and an admittance by the courts that in fact all parents cannot be judged equally by their son's and daughter's actions. There are too many circumstances that could expose a parent to a law that in inflexable, and the result is the car is taken. That approach is the black and white approach to the problem. Approached with discretion, the parents are notified of the severity of the crime, and they are responsible for the future behavior. First time out with seizure of assets seems too extreme a penalty.

That is where the resolution of the conflict becomes the sentence that takes into account that in fact many parents will be caught up in this, and the sentence is not only effecting the child but the adult as well.

We can always say just bar the child from driving the car. But in todays real world, for most that is not a practical solution. But if a child is caught, that would become the solution, and one that the parents will have to live with. But not the first time.

As for a parent not knowing their kid is dealing like this one. I find it very hard to believe that the parents were clueless. And would support a seizure of the car if it can be proved in a court that they in fact knew. You cannot turn a blind eye to the illegals actions of your kids because you want to be their 'friends,' or are afraid of them.