The Supreme Court hasagreed to heara case that could set limits on the federal governments sweeping powers to seize property in drug cases under criminal forfeiturelaws. Tony and Terry Honeycuttwere charged with federal drug offenses after selling quantities of iodine-based water disinfectant at their camping and hunting store in Chattanoogabecause the substance can also be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Tony the actual owner of the store pleaded guilty and had $200000 seizedthe amount believed equivalent to his proceeds from the sales of the chemical. Terry fought the charge and lost. The government then sought an additional $70000 from him. InHoneycutt v. United StatesTerry is arguing that he is not liable for the proceeds because he wasnt an owner of the store. The local district court agreed that Terry should not have to pay but this was overturned by theSixth Circuit Court of Appealsin Cincinnati which held that joint and several liability applies in drug forfeiture cases. In other words as a co-conspirator he could be held liable for the proceedseven if he never saw a penny of them. The federal government acknowledged that the appeals courts have been divided on the question presented by Terrys casebut nonetheless urged the Supreme Court justices to deny review saying that the split among the circuit courts is lopsided and recent. Disregarding these arguments the high court agreed to hear the case. It will likely be argued in the spring with a decision expected in June. The outcome of course will almost certainly hinge on the swing vote seat on the Supreme Court to be appointed by the incoming president. Check in daily for all of HIGH TIMES marijuana news. by Bill Weinberg at High Times