In a highly unusual move, the Ogeechee Circuit District Attorney’s Office is seeking to seize the property of a landlord because of her tenant’s alleged drug use.
Background on the Criminal Case
Acting on information received in a drug complaint, investigators with the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office began an investigation on January 11, 2023 on a property in Brooklet that was occupied by Lauren Leigh Keaveney. Keaveney, a tenant, consented to the search and Methamphetamine was discovered inside both the residence and in the utility shed on the property. Keaveney was subsequently arrested and charged with Possession of Methamphetamine.
As of July 27, 2023, the criminal case against Keaveny has not been adjudicated. According to the paperwork filed in the Bulloch County Superior Court Clerk’s Office, despite the January arrest, there’s been no indictment on the case and no action since. After a full six months, the case has not even made it to the grand jury, despite grand juries in Bulloch County convening at least three times since Keaveney’s arrest.
Nevertheless, the District Attorney’s Office has filed paperwork to seize the property location where Keaveney was arrested, despite her not being the lawful owner of the said property. Prosecutors are seeking to do this through a process known as Civil Asset Forfeiture.
What is Civil Asset Forfeiture?
Civil Asset Forfeiture is a process in which the state is authorized to seize property simply because it is believed that the property is connected to criminal activity. It was originally created as a means of seizing property connected to large criminal enterprises, such as drug cartels and well-connected crime networks. In present day, it is used much more frequently.
Technically, the state files a suit against the property, not the owner of the property, and after the state seizes the property from an individual, it has the authority to sell or surplus the property for a profit to use for operations.
Traditionally, the process happens before a defendant is determined to be innocent or guilty in a court of law – and in a proceeding separate from any criminal adjudication – which has long raised questions about the legitimacy and constitutionality of the practice as well as contributed to its abuse.
Among the other problems with the practice is that ‘defendants’ are often required to prove that the property was not part of the criminal act, which can be difficult and also costly since an attorney is often necessary to defend against the action. Because it is not a criminal proceeding, there is no public defender’s office to assist. Prosecutors often rely on a person’s inability to retain legal counsel for such a matter, prompting the individual to allow the state to seize the property ‘without a fight.’
For those that do opt to challenge forfeiture proceedings, the threshold for the state to ‘win’ is much lower than in a criminal proceeding where the standard is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ In asset forfeiture, all that is required is a standard of ‘by the preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning ‘more likely than not’ that some inanimate object was involved in the criminal activity or the furtherance of the criminal.
The practice has been outlawed in a handful of states, including Nebraska, New Mexico, and North Carolina. In the last few years, a number of others have taken steps to ‘scale back’ their laws on civil asset forfeiture and limit the practice substantially. Georgia is not one of them.
Landlord & Tenant Component
The attempts of seizure by the district attorney’s office present an interesting angle in this case because the property in question is owned by Wendy Walker, who is not the defendant in any pending criminal case. She has owned the property since she purchased it at an auction in 2002. She purchased the parcel for the purpose of placing a mobile home on the property so it could be used as an income generating rental property.
According to court filings, Walker owns a number of properties in the area for which she is the landlord and utilizes the properties for rental income. Similarly, the Bulloch County Tax Assessor shows Walker named on fifteen different parcels in Bulloch County as part of a quasi-business venture Walker has used to generate income with her mother. Though now retired, Walker supplemented her income working for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia with these properties.
On the day of the incident when Keaveney was arrested, Walker was not present, nor was she living on the property. For as long as she has owned the property, it has not been a primary residence for her.
As far as the tenant goes, it would be difficult to contend Keaveney has a lengthy criminal history that would have been known to Walker as the Bulloch County court records show only one other case against Keaveny from late 2022, which was dismissed.
Complaint for Forfeiture in Bulloch County Case
According to the complaint filed by the state in January 2023, the District Attorney’s Office is seeking forfeiture of:
- the property itself (0.36 acres of land in Bulloch County)
- an 18×20 enclosed utility shed
- a 1999 Fleetwood 14×66 mobile home
The complaint names Keaveney and Walker as ‘interest holders’ of the property sought.
District Attorney Daphne Totten and ADA Barclay Black argued in the filing that the property is ‘contraband and subject to forfeiture’ because the property:
- “was found in close proximity to the controlled substance, namely methamphetamine”
- “was possessed, used, or available for use to facilitate a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act”
Response by Walker
Of most importance, Walker’s response to the state’s seizure effort is that Keaveney, as a tenant, has no legal claim of interest in the property. Specifically, the response also contends that Walker, as the landlord, was not:
- Privy to criminal conduct giving rise to its forfeiture
- Did not consent to the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture
- Did not know of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture
- Did not know the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture was likely to occur
- Should not have reasonably known the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture was likely to occur, and
- Had not acquired and did not state to acquire substantial proceeds from the conduct giving rise to its forfeiture other than as an interest owner in an arm’s length commercial transaction [the lease]
The response also notes a number of errors made in the filing by the District Attorney’s Office, including:
- A supposed survey conducted on the property which lists the presence of a mobile home before a mobile home was ever present on the property
- Incorrect OCGA state statute citations
Walker has asked for a hearing on the matter, which is expected to take place Friday in Bulloch County Superior Court.
Daphne Totten and “highly unusual move” goes together like peanut butter and jelly. If you see one you will usually see the other. Ogeechee Judical System at its best.
Bulloch county govt is complete trash! What does miss walkers property have to do with a squatters drug use and activity