HARDIN CO.—One of the many people hemmed up in the early July massive pill sweep in Hardin County has had a civil suit filed against her by the county’s housing authority.
Shantelle Foster, 32, of Elizabethtown, was the subject of a Forcible Entry and Detainer case file on August 5 in order to get her and three others living with her in E-town housing out of the unit they’ve been renting…and all because housing says Foster violated the terms of the lease by getting in trouble with the drug sweep.
The question, however, isn’t actually Foster “getting in trouble.”
The question is the lease itself, and whether due process is being violated, since as of press time, Foster hadn’t been found guilty of any crime, nor, according to Hardin County court authorities, even had her case heard yet.
Foster was one of 18 charged in the roundup that commenced July 1 when a drug sweep conducted by various policing agencies in downstate Illinois focused on pill-pushing at housing or other areas with enhanced circumstances (within distance of school, churches, etc).
Foster was alleged to have unlawfully delivered a controlled substance, (10 tablets of Adderall) on or about May 23, 2014 to a confidential informant; the same on January 8 but done while at a public housing agency; and the same on January 9 while at a public housing agency, three counts in all. The first Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Substance was charged as a Class X felony; the second and third, Class 1 felonies.
However, Foster is just alleged to have made such deliveries. Each count is a charge (allegation) by the charging agency. They have not been proven as fact by a court of law and so ordered by a judge. Foster hasn’t been convicted; she hasn’t even had a next pretrial hearing; that’s set to go on September 15.
In America, a person charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty.
But apparently, not in a public housing authority.
It appears someone doing up the lease terms for the housing authority in Hardin, likely an attorney who should know better, made an attempt to cover this situation by creating a specific documents outlining Hardin County Housing Authority’s “One Strike and You’re Out” policy.
The policy outlines that the HA wants to keep tenants and others on the premises “safe.” “Problems” these ones could face include but are not limited to “the sale, use and distribution of drugs, public consumption of alcohol, harassment, creating and causing disturbances, gambling, being an unauthorized resident, battery, criminal activity or record, destruction of Housing Authority property, or repeated violation of Housing rules.
“IMMEDIATE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS WILL BE STARTED AGAINST THE TENANT AND TENANT’S HOUSEHOLD,” the document reads.
Nevertheless, nowhere on the document (nor on any other documents provided by the housing authority in the specific Foster pleading, including her signed lease documents) does it explain that this applies to ACCUSATON (charges or allegations). Therefore, lack of that caution – that this applies to merely a charge, too – by its absence means that this applies to a person who has been determines to have, by law, definitively involved in these activities…in other words, convicted in a court of law.
And Foster hasn’t. She’s merely charged.
It’s highly unlikely Foster has the wherewithal or means to fight such a thing, and may have, as of press time (August 23) already taken step to vacate the premises.
However, this is the kind of thing that goes on all the time in housing, all over the country. While law abiding housing tenants shouldn’t have to put up with criminals in their midst, causing problems and possibly committing crimes against law-abiding tenants, the fact is that until a court says a person is a criminal, they’re not a criminal. They’re not “engaged in criminal activity” simply because they’re charged. It’s one thing when a person is arrested on the premises for breaking in to a place, beating another person, actually caught in the act of engaging in criminal conduct and is removed. However, to take the housing away from them when they’re merely charged – and the lease in effect has nothing in the terms dealing with mere charges – that could be cause for legal recourse.
Fortunately for the housing authority, Foster also owes unpaid rent, excess utility charges and late fees in the amount of $362.33, that amount accurate through August 5, this giving them just cause to order her evicted.
She was ordered to appear in court on the matter on Aug. 27.
As stated before, Foster isn’t in court on the drug charges until Sept. 15.