PROPERTY SEIZURES

Police departments across the country have concocted a clever scheme
to get around state laws restricting the use of assets seized during
raids. It's yet another example of how the nation's war on drugs has,
too frequently, compromised the integrity of law enforcement agencies.

Most states - including California - limit the ability of local police
departments to keep assets confiscated in raids. Yet an investigative
report by The Kansas City Star, called "Cash in Custody," found that
police departments across the country have created a legal, yet highly
questionable, process to keep more of the money.

"It works this way," according to Star reporter Karen Dillon. "When
police seize money, they call a federal agency instead of going to
state court to confiscate it. An agency such as the Drug Enforcement
Administration accepts the seizure, making it a federal case. The DEA
keeps a cut of the money and returns the rest to police. State courts
- - and their generally more restrictive forfeiture laws - are bypassed
altogether." Police agencies and their defenders argue that they need
the money to conduct important anti-crime and drug-related arrest and
programs. They say that the assets taken are only taken from
wrongdoers, so there's no reason to get concerned about the process.

But there's a clear reason that states are restrictive on the amount
of assets police departments can keep.

When police know that they can expand their budgets by seizing
citizens' property, they have too much of a vested interest in
conducting busts, rather than seeing to it that justice is served.

According to the Ms. Dillon, "In California, tougher forfeiture laws
that passed in 1994 to protect civil liberties succeeded only in
sending police even more frequently to federal agencies." She quotes
State Sen. John Burton complaining that "there is not a ... thing we
can do." His efforts at a tougher bill have been thwarted by police
lobbying.

This abuse should concern average law-abiding citizens, given that
federal law allows police to seize property even if no criminal charge
is filed. Often, people who have had assets seized must go to great
lengths to get their property back - if they can ever get it back.

"[S]ome state laws protect people from having property forfeited by
police unless they're charged with a felony," Ms. Dillon wrote. "But
under federal law, authorities don't even need a criminal charge to
forfeit property. In fact, experts estimate that the great majority of
forfeitures occur without a criminal charge. Most state laws require
that forfeitures be ordered by a judge. Federal law enforcement has
the power to order forfeitures without a judge - and does in most cases.'

There's a serious constitutional issue involved also.

The process, in essence, federalizes crimes that should be dealt with
by state and local authorities. Clearly, the government that's closer
to the people - the state governments - typically want to put the
brakes on seizures. But the far-off government, under rules
promulgated by the federal Justice Department, allows police agencies
to continue with this dubious practice.

The end result is an erosion of liberties, an increase in the ability
of the government to take your property and use it for its own
benefit, a shift in power from the individual to the state.

Congress should look into the matter and pass federal laws - a recent
law restricting seizures doesn't do enough - that put an end to the
police agency shell game.