A CAUTIONARY TALE ABOUT PROPERTY CONFISCATIONS

The case of Frederick Brilla, who was awarded $100,000 in punitive
damages against Washington County this month, illustrates the perils
of seizing property as a crime-fighting technique. Billed originally
as a way to hit big-time drug dealers where they live, property
confiscations have degenerated in many parts of the country into
revenue-raisers and have targeted small-time operators, their
unwitting families and even people whose only offense is to drive on
the wrong highway at the wrong time.

Washington County, to its credit, has used confiscations rather
sparingly. Still, a federal court jury ruled that the Brilla case
constituted a civil rights violation.

Brilla was preparing to start a lawn tractor business in the
Canonsburg area in 1989 when police found cocaine in a house that he
was remodeling. He maintained his innocence and his first trial ended
in a hung jury, but a second jury convicted him of drug violations. He
served more than four years in prison, and authorities confiscated
$52,564 in cash, which Brilla said was start-up money for his
business, along with electronic equipment, 13 lawn tractors and, for
some reason, a box of personal photographs from his childhood.

Brilla sued to get the property back because the statue of limitations
on forfeiture actions had expired when the things were taken. In 1996,
the court ordered Washington County John Pettit to return the personal
items within 90 days but, even though they were in storage locally, it
took six years, and the pictures and a computer were never found.

How did this happen? No one knows, Pettit said. For $100,000, we ought
to find out.