State high court: give property back to inmate
Posted: Saturday, November 10, 2007
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- Don't keep stuff that belongs to other people -- unless you can prove it really isn't theirs.
The Nebraska Supreme Court sent that message to police and courts across the state Friday with its ruling in a property seizure case of a prison inmate who, without a lawyer, fought the state and won.
"I hope it sends a message that as an American citizen you can protect your rights and property," said Timothy Agee, who is serving a 10-year sentence at the state prison in Tecumseh for a marijuana conviction and being a habitual criminal. Agee, who is not a lawyer and said his last job was selling barbecue sauce, said it took him about a month to prepare motions in the case, his first.
"They can't just take things away and not give them back. They're not above the law."
Three years ago, Agee was charged with theft at the same time of the marijuana charge.
Police suspected he was involved in a scheme where checks and fraudulent driver's licenses were used to buy things at department stores.
While searching Agee's home during the investigation, police seized three watches, a diamond bracelet, two cell phones, 10 articles of clothing, along with his wallet and Social Security card. A jury convicted him of the marijuana charge, but the theft charge was dismissed.
Still, Agee didn't get the property back. So he asked the Douglas County District Court to demand that the Douglas County Sheriff's Office hand it over, saying it was his.
But despite no evidence that the property was indeed stolen, according to the Supreme Court opinion, Agee only got his photographs and Social Security card back. Agee said the value of the jewelry was around $5,000.
After being turned down by the district court, the 42-year-old took his case to the Supreme Court.
In the Friday ruling, the high court judges said the state's argument -- that Agee must prove the property was his -- was backward, leading them to reverse the district court decision.
"This argument misapprehends the burden of proof in such a proceeding ... the burden is on the government to show that it has a legitimate reason to retain the property," says the high court's ruling, written by Judge John Gerrard.
Once criminal proceedings are finished, property must be returned unless it is contraband or subject to forfeiture, the court said.
"We agree that stolen property should be returned to its rightful owner ... but here, the charges had been dismissed," the opinion adds.
The state argued that one of the watches, the bracelet and the phones were stolen.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Jon Bruning said the office, which lost the case to Agee, would not comment.
Douglas County Sheriff Timothy Dunning said he was not familiar with the case. But, he said, it is not uncommon for his office to keep property it believes is stolen, even if it doesn't have conclusive evidence that it is.
And the fact charges are dropped, he said, is not a sure sign property is not stolen.
"It might mean something was wrong with the case," Dunning said.
On the Net:
Nebraska Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/opinions/2007/november/nov9/s06-594.p df
The Nebraska Supreme Court sent that message to police and courts across the state Friday with its ruling in a property seizure case of a prison inmate who, without a lawyer, fought the state and won.
"I hope it sends a message that as an American citizen you can protect your rights and property," said Timothy Agee, who is serving a 10-year sentence at the state prison in Tecumseh for a marijuana conviction and being a habitual criminal. Agee, who is not a lawyer and said his last job was selling barbecue sauce, said it took him about a month to prepare motions in the case, his first.
"They can't just take things away and not give them back. They're not above the law."
Three years ago, Agee was charged with theft at the same time of the marijuana charge.
Police suspected he was involved in a scheme where checks and fraudulent driver's licenses were used to buy things at department stores.
While searching Agee's home during the investigation, police seized three watches, a diamond bracelet, two cell phones, 10 articles of clothing, along with his wallet and Social Security card. A jury convicted him of the marijuana charge, but the theft charge was dismissed.
Still, Agee didn't get the property back. So he asked the Douglas County District Court to demand that the Douglas County Sheriff's Office hand it over, saying it was his.
But despite no evidence that the property was indeed stolen, according to the Supreme Court opinion, Agee only got his photographs and Social Security card back. Agee said the value of the jewelry was around $5,000.
After being turned down by the district court, the 42-year-old took his case to the Supreme Court.
In the Friday ruling, the high court judges said the state's argument -- that Agee must prove the property was his -- was backward, leading them to reverse the district court decision.
"This argument misapprehends the burden of proof in such a proceeding ... the burden is on the government to show that it has a legitimate reason to retain the property," says the high court's ruling, written by Judge John Gerrard.
Once criminal proceedings are finished, property must be returned unless it is contraband or subject to forfeiture, the court said.
"We agree that stolen property should be returned to its rightful owner ... but here, the charges had been dismissed," the opinion adds.
The state argued that one of the watches, the bracelet and the phones were stolen.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Jon Bruning said the office, which lost the case to Agee, would not comment.
Douglas County Sheriff Timothy Dunning said he was not familiar with the case. But, he said, it is not uncommon for his office to keep property it believes is stolen, even if it doesn't have conclusive evidence that it is.
And the fact charges are dropped, he said, is not a sure sign property is not stolen.
"It might mean something was wrong with the case," Dunning said.
On the Net:
Nebraska Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/opinions/2007/november/nov9/s06-594.p df
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
