Ore. Supreme Court Ruling Revitalizes Civil Forfeiture as Police Tool

Yamhill County is marching toward confiscation of a local woman’s home because she was caught dealing meth out of it — following a recent victory at the Oregon Supreme Court.

The ruling has statewide implications for police agencies, who are once again cleared to sue in civil court for ownership of cash or property linked to a crime. The state’s high court said doing so doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution’s ban against punishing someone twice for the same offense.

The seizure process, known as civil forfeiture, has been generating less cash for police agencies and Salem since 2019 — a decline analysts attribute to shifting drug laws and pandemic disruptions to interagency task forces.

But that trend could change due to a Nov. 21 order from the Oregon Supreme Court reversing a 2023 decision by state appellate justices.

“Civil forfeiture,” wrote Chief Justice Meagan Flynn, “is neither intended to be criminal punishment nor is the overall scheme so punitive in purpose or effect as to persuade us that the statutes amount to criminal punishment.”

The decision centers on the case of Sheryl Sublet, who was caught dealing hundreds of grams of methamphetamine in 2018.

Sublet, a 67-year-old grandmother, spent more than three years in prison after taking a plea deal, only to learn upon her release that the sheriff’s office was seeking forfeiture of her home on Northwest Pike Road.

Sure, the roof leaks and the paint could use a touch-up, but Sublet said she owns the 1,500-square-foot house free and clear from the bank and could never afford to start renting on a fixed income.

The nearly 2-acre spread backs up onto the Yamhill River, with more than enough space to roam for her Yorkshire terriers Elsa and Beaubo.

Sublet says she was addicted to meth herself when she started dealing, and was still processing a sexual assault from her time as a heavy vehicle operator in the U.S. Army.

She’s sober now, Sublet says, and court records show she hasn’t been charged with any new crimes. She notes that Yamhill County’s interagency narcotics team already succeeded in seizing $50,000 in cashier’s checks from her back in 2018.

“I’ve learned my lesson, believe me,” Sublet said. “I would like to stay right where I’m at.”

Her attorney, Zach Stern, has filed a request for the state Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, and failing that, says he will seek a last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supporters of civil forfeiture, including the League of Oregon Cities and Association of Oregon Counties, says it’s an effective way to disrupt profit-seeking drug traffickers and seize ill-gotten gains.

But the figures fell in recent years, when the pandemic and passage of Measure 110 pushed down the number of drug delivery convictions in the state, said Kelly Officer, research director for the state Criminal Justice Commission.

“It may start to tick back up now,” said Officer, noting how Oregon lawmakers had recriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs, “but those changes take some time.”

In its most recent report, the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission said law enforcement agencies initiated 26 civil forfeiture cases in 2023 and distributed $1.1 million (much of the money came from cases initiated in prior years).

Some of the cash was set aside to fund drug courts and the state’s Early Learning Division, while about half went to police and prosecutors to buy everything from a new barcode printer for the Albany Police Department to Glocks and gun sights for Medford cops.

Yamhill County Sheriff Sam Elliott praised the Supreme Court ruling in a statement to The Oregonian/OregonLive.

“The Yamhill County Sheriff’s Office have always endeavored to implement civil forfeiture consistently with Oregon and federal law, and we are pleased that the Oregon Supreme Court confirmed the county did not violate the claimant’s rights,” he said.

___________

Visit oregonlive.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.