Pubdate: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 Source: Morning Sun (Mt. Pleasant, MI) Copyright: 2013 Morning Sun Contact: http://www.themorningsun.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3938 Author: Susan Field FORFEITURES AIMED AT STOPPING DRUG OPERATIONS A Mt. Pleasant man facing multiple drug charges could lose the property that he is accused of using to sell marijuana. Donald T. Inman is accused of selling marijuana at 311 W. Michigan St. in downtown Mt. Pleasant. In addition, his wife Ruth Inman and her son Dennis Huber are targets of a civil forfeiture case. In major drug busts, the Inmans are involved in the civil action that could cost them their real estate and any other possessions that can be linked to an alleged drug operation. Huber and his father, both licensed patients and caregivers under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, are accused of growing and distributing amounts of the drug exceeding allowable limits. Forfeiture action against the Inmans, with Ruth being listed as the owner of the business, are pending. In Michigan, drug forfeiture laws are modeled after federal laws, Isabella County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Robert Holmes said. Designed to deter the possession and distribution of drugs, the law requires prosecutors to launch civil cases against those accused in cases in which real estate and possessions tied to the drug operation are valued at more than $50,000. The thought behind the law is to make the civil penalty as harsh as possible to deter the distribution of drugs. Forfeitures are penalties in addition to any criminal charges against suspects. Drug forfeitures are against possessions and not suspects, Holmes said. Anything prosecutors can tie to drug operations, including real estate, equipment, vehicles and money, can be the target of forfeitures, and suspects can go to court to defend the items, Holmes said. In cases where prosecutors opt to file civil feiture claims when the value of the drugs or real estate does not exceed $50,000, it is often times more costly to fight the action than to accept it, he said. For example, if a suspect is carrying $200 in cash that can be connected to the sale of drugs and the suspect pays a $250 bond as well as hire an attorney, it isn't cost effective to fight the action, Holmes said. In Isabella County, prosecutors don't seek forfeitures on every drug case that goes through the court system, but when they do, property connected to drug activity valued at less than $50,000 can be seized by administrative forfeiture, Holmes said. Most local forfeitures are on the low end, Holmes said, and property seized must be sold at auction unless it can be used for drug interdiction. Automobiles seized in forfeitures can be used by police agencies for surveillance or other law enforcement activities involving drug operations, and money taken in by auction sales must also be used for drug interdiction, Holmes said. Many drug forfeiture cases are resolved by settlement with buyback agreements, Holmes said. One forfeiture action that Holmes was involved in resulted in the seizure of a family's farm, a rental property and the family's main home, Holmes said. A relative of the suspect came up with more than $100,000 to settle the case. In the case against the Inmans, prosecutors are seeking to keep cash and the commercial property and alleging that Ruth Inman did not file income tax returns from 2010 to 2012, and that Donald Inman reported adjusted gross incomes of $877 in 2010, $4,800 in 2011 and $7,359 in 2012. Prosecutors also said Donald Inman did not claim any profit or loss from the medical marijuana business, but court records indicate that the Inmans and Huber gambled $472,882 at the Soaring Eagle Casino in 2012 and the first three months of 2013. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom