Man Loses $400, Takes Case to Court of Appeals | News
News
INDY Week's news blog

Archives | RSS

Monday, November 3, 2014

Man Loses $400, Takes Case to Court of Appeals

Posted by on Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:31 AM

A Charlotte man forced to forfeit $400 to the government wants his money back. And he has taken his plea to the North Carolina Court of Appeals in hopes of reclaiming the cash.

Tomorrow the court is scheduled to consider the case of Thomas Royster, who pleaded guilty to a marijuana charge stemming from 2011. And though the financial stakes aren’t particularly high for Royster, his case has implications for future scenarios in which larger sums of cash are found during drug investigations.

Three years ago, Royster pulled into a Charlotte motel parking lot with expired tags on his car. Police investigated and found weed and a digital scale hidden inside the dashboard. When they searched Royster's person, they discovered and seized $400.

Royster was originally charged with possession with intent to sell or delver. But a year later he accepted a plea deal to a reduced charge of simple possession, for which the punishment was probation. Nevertheless, Royster's trial judge ordered the forfeiture of Royster's $400, which the police ostensibly seized because they believed it was drug money.

Royster appealed the judge’s decision, arguing that there was no evidence linking the weed to the cash. 

NC Statute § 90-112(a)(2) states that all money acquired or used “in selling, purchasing, manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing, or exporting” a controlled substance shall be subject to forfeiture. Forfeited drug money must be deposited into the school fund of the county in which it was seized.

The Royster case, however, begs the question: what if more than $400 was found on Royster’s person? What if it were $1,000? What it if it were $5,000?

North Carolina case law suggests that monetary value is irrelevant when cash is discovered in close proximity to drugs. In State v. Teasley, a Court of Appeals case from 1986, the judges held that a trial judge erred when he ordered the forfeiture of $5,900 discovered alongside cocaine in a barn after a police standoff with the barn’s owner, because there was no direct link between them.

The State Attorney General, however, rejects Royster’s “close proximity” argument, arguing that there are other ways to prove a link between drugs and money found on a suspect's person. One example, State's lawyers contend, is the presence of a digital scale alongside drugs, as is in the case of Royster. The presence of the scale shows Roytster's intent to manufacture drugs, the State's lawyers argue, and should be considered by a judge in forfeiture dealings, even if Royster pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of simple possession. 

A ruling by the Court of Appeals is expected in upcoming months. 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Pin It

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in News



Twitter Activity

Comments

Mr. Goldsmith, please read Jennifer's post below. If you have journalistic integrity, please fix your blog as it shows up …

by Sherry D. on Mayor McFarlane Will Not Be Turned Away from Democratic Party Events, Spokesman Says (News)

Look Lisa, your grandfather's story is tough. I would suggest however that he is a victim of capitalist oppression, not …

by CPF (CommiePinkoFag) on “Durham’s a Bright Light for Our Movement”: After Their Cases Were Continued Until November, Defend Durham Activists Took a Victory Lap (News)

Most Recent Comments

Mr. Goldsmith, please read Jennifer's post below. If you have journalistic integrity, please fix your blog as it shows up …

by Sherry D. on Mayor McFarlane Will Not Be Turned Away from Democratic Party Events, Spokesman Says (News)

Look Lisa, your grandfather's story is tough. I would suggest however that he is a victim of capitalist oppression, not …

by CPF (CommiePinkoFag) on “Durham’s a Bright Light for Our Movement”: After Their Cases Were Continued Until November, Defend Durham Activists Took a Victory Lap (News)

Apparently we must hope that the N&O doesn't follow through on this trend by deciding that they will cover legislative …

by khoragos on The N&O’s Performing Arts Correspondent Says the Paper Is Cutting Back on Performing Arts Reviews (News)

Cancelling the parade affects all people. I usually went just for the parade, not the night events. Parents take their …

by Aiden on Carolina Jews for Justice Says NC Pride Schedule Fix Isn't Enough (News)

I should also add that it was professor Daniel Sherman who penned the letter that we all signed after some …

by elin o'Hara slavick on UNC Faculty Members Call for the Removal of Silent Sam (News)

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation