Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court decided Tuesday that more than $11,000 confiscated from a parolee’s apartment should be returned to the parolee’s aunt, overturning a Marion Superior Court ruling.
Authorities seized the $11,180 in September 2020 during a search of Dylan Willams’ apartment, alleging that it “had been furnished or was intended to be furnished in exchange for a violation of a criminal statute.”
Marion Superior Court Judge Gary L. Miller approved the forfeiture of the money after authorities argued that the discovery of narcotics in the apartment and the finding of $3,500 in various denominations inside Williams’s wallet and $7,680 in various denominations secured by a rubber band from a dresser in his bedroom showed the money was part of a criminal enterprise.
But Williams’ aunt, Angela Smith, also laid claim to the money. She explained that she made a large withdrawal from her bank and gave $15,000 to Williams to hold for her and hide it from her abusive boyfriend.
Smith argued that the money was exclusively hers and not tied to criminal activity. She corroborated her testimony with bank records, a police report, photographs of head injuries her boyfriend inflicted on her, and a protective order she obtained and renewed against him.
“All in all, the uncontradicted evidence presented during the hearing establishes that Smith is the owner of the $11,180. And the trial court neither concluded she was not the owner nor made any findings or statements questioning her credibility,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote in the court’s unanimous opinion.
The justices heard arguments in the case as part of its first-ever “Night Court for Legislators” in February.
Their ruling Tuesday now sets a formal framework for handling such forfeiture cases in the future.
The court found that when the state fails to meet its burden at a forfeiture hearing, then the trial court must order the money to be released to the person to whom it belongs.
“When the money was seized from the person contesting the forfeiture, the court will release the money to that person. But when someone else contests the forfeiture, that party must produce evidence showing the money belongs to them,” the justices ruled. “The court must then determine whether that person has established ownership. If so, the court must order the money returned to that person. But if that person has not established ownership, the court must order the money returned to the person from whom the money was seized.”
The case was Angela Y. Smith, Dylan Williams, and $11,180 in United States Currency v. State of Indiana, 23S-MI-345.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.