After almost seven years of fighting in courts, it appears the long struggle for justice for Lawyers of Distinction member Mr. William Campbell’s client is over. In 2012, Mr. Campbell’s client was stopped by a drug intervention task force for a minor traffic infraction. A consensual search of his car revealed more than $100,000.00 dollars in U.S. Currency. The state alleged these monies were drug proceeds. Client was charged criminally with possession of drug proceeds and the money was seized and forfeiture proceedings commenced.
Mr. Campbell fought the criminal case and ultimately prevailed on a motion to quash and dismiss. The state was unable to show any link between the money and any illegal activity. The state, however, continued to seek to keep the money. Ultimately, the case was tried to the court and a decision in favor of Mr. Campbell’s client, the claimant was entered. The state appealed this to the state supreme court which remanded it to the court of appeals for adjudication. The court of appeals found no deficiency in the ruling of the trial court nor any abuse of discretion. The court of appeals entered its order denying relief to the state.
Then the state went back to the supreme court on a petition for writ of certiorari, claiming both the trial and appellate courts got it wrong. The supreme court directed a response be filed to the petition, which Mr. Campbell’s firm did as quickly as possible, opposing the grant of cert. The supreme court has now taken care of the matter in a single sentence order which states “The petition for certiorari is denied.”
It has taken almost seven years to get to this final resolution, but the client persevered and as a result he has prevailed. Mr. Campbell’s firm is awaiting the possibility of a motion to re-consider, which based on the vote count denying cert. should be deemed as frivolous.
Mr. Campbell expects my client to be restored of his property, plus interest. This firm continues to oppose and object to the “civil” taking of property from citizens and then being made to litigate its return, especially in the absence of any demonstrable criminal activity.