A San Antonio sports agent is embroiled in a court battle with federal authorities who want to take away property he bought in California because they say they saw marijuana on it.
No drugs have been seized on the land in northeastern California, andLaPoe Smith told federal agents he bought the land — sight unseen — for an associate who did not have the money.
The California battle, and an investigation, have reached into San Antonio because the federal government contends that Smith sent, or had someone send, numerous money orders, bank and cashier's checks to buy the five parcels of property, which cost a total of more than $161,000.
. . .
“Nobody ever went to that property and seized any drugs,” said Smith's lawyer, David M. Michael of San Francisco. “What they claim they did is a flyover and claimed they saw marijuana. So its pure rank speculation, first of all. Two, they're not specifically alleging ... he had any involvement or knowledge of illegal activity.”
In its case against Smith, the U.S. attorney in Sacramento is using a civil court tool aimed at taking, by forfeiture, land, homes or buildings suspected of being used for illegal activity.
The feds' actions seem overreaching to advocates of property owners, like the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice. The group is not involved in Smith's case but has been fighting the government across the country in similar forfeiture cases. In Massachusetts, for example, the libertarian group is helping the owners of a motel fight off the feds' attempt to seize the property, where guests have been found guilty of drug offenses. The owners are not accused of any wrongdoing.
“Unlike criminal law, where you're innocent until proven guilty, the government targets property for forfeiture and you must prove you're innocent,” said Larry Salzman an attorney with the Institute for Justice. “We think it's wrong because it turns the idea of innocent until proven guilty on its head.”
San Antonio Express-News, 11/26/11/