In one case, a Decatur man would have done well to exercise his right to remain silent during a 2014 arrest for selling drugs after officers served a search warrant at his home. Instead, Terrance Norwood told a Macon County sheriff’s deputy that he planned to get out of the drug business because he’d just won the lottery.

Before realizing the potential import of their words, Norwood and his live-in girlfriend, Tykisha Lofton, told police that he’d bought the ticket and she’d scratched it off, revealing a $50,000 prize, according to a Sept. 27 ruling by the Fourth District Appellate Court in Springfield. Lofton filed for the money with the state lottery office less than three weeks before Macon County sheriff’s deputies served a search warrant at the home where she lived with her three children and Norwood, who told police that he was unemployed and selling drugs to make ends meet. Lofton was also jobless.

The Macon County state’s attorney’s office filed paperwork to freeze the lottery payoff, saying that the prize was a fruit of the drug trade and so must be forfeited to the government. The state’s attorney’s office opted for a lump-sum payment, demanding $35,315 right now instead of $50,000 paid out over several years. Last year, Macon County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Griffin said no, ruling that, while the ticket was likely purchased with drug money, the prize should go to Lofton because the windfall didn’t come from drug sales.

“The proceeds in this particular case were the windfall of purchasing one $3 lottery ticket,” Griffin wrote in his 2015 decision. “I think, at some point in time, the argument that everything stems from something has to stop. … What if, for instance, they had taken the proceeds and invested…in some type of successful dry cleaning business or some such thing, and they’re making $100,000 a year from the dry cleaning business. Are those proceeds then forfeitable? What if, for instance, some cannabis dealer had earned $10,000 selling cannabis, and he decided he was going to put himself through medical school or something with that money, earned a medical degree and was out successfully working? Is that money then forfeitable? At some point, the connection has to stop.”

But not, the appellate court decided in reversing Griffith, at the point of the lottery.

The purpose of state forfeiture laws is to deter drug trafficking by instilling civil penalties in addition to criminal sanctions, the court noted in a 3-0 decision. Citing a similar federal court case in Texas that ended with a drug dealer forfeiting a $5 million lottery prize, the amount of money at stake doesn’t matter, the appellate court said.

“Because of the direct link between the lottery winnings and the funds used to purchase the original ticket, the winnings can reasonably be considered ‘proceeds traceable’ to Norwood’s illegal drug sales,” the court wrote in its ruling handed down last week. “As such, those proceeds were forfeitable under the Forfeiture Act. The trial court’s conclusion to the contrary was in error.”

In an unrelated case, the Second District Appellate Court in Elgin recently upheld a trial court that ruled against the Outlaws motorcycle club, which argued that the government couldn’t seize patches worn by club members.

The case began when a half-dozen Outlaws went to the Lizard Lounge in Wonder Lake in 2012, according to court documents. Physical altercations ensued, and four Outlaws ended up charged with aggravated battery and mob action. As part of a plea bargain, three Outlaws pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to surrender leather vests decorated with Outlaw patches.

The plea prompted the club to formally intervene: While the government could take the leather vests, the embroidered patches were club property and could not be seized, a lawyer for the Outlaws argued. Not so, the appellate ruled in a unanimous Sept. 14 decision.

An investigator with the Du Page County state’s attorney’s office deemed an expert on motorcycle clubs had testified that the coveted patches denote membership in a gang that engages in criminal activity and that the vests were used to further “streetgang activity,” the appellate court wrote. A detective had testified that Outlaws gain membership, reputation and influence via violence and intimidation, and patches warn others that “messing with” club members carries consequences. And four Lizard Lounge patrons testified that the bar grew quiet and customers felt intimidated when Outlaws entered the bar on the night of the incident.

“The Outlaws all acted jointly,” McHenry County Circuit Judge Sharon Prather wrote in her decision upholding the seizure. “The vests identify their membership and facilitated the fights resulting in injuries to the victims.”

In upholding Prather, the appellate court wrote the law in Illinois allows the government to seize property that is put to an illegal use regardless of the culpability of the property’s owner.

Contact Bruce Rushton at [email protected].