US COURT REJECTS INMATE'S BID TO RECOUP ASSETS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court Tuesday ruled against a jailed
drug dealer who tried to get back $22,000 that the federal government
seized from him by arguing that proper procedures had not been followed.

The high court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled that the government gave Larry
Dusenbery adequate notice when it sent him a forfeiture notice by
registered mail to his prison.

Dusenbery, who says he never got the notice, alleged the failure to hand
deliver it to him in person violated his constitutional due process rights.

Dusenbery pleaded guilty to drug and gun charges in 1986 and went to a
federal prison in Michigan. His assets were seized in 1988 during a search
of the residence where he had been arrested.

In 1993, Dusenbery filed suit for return of the money, claiming he never
got notice of the seizure.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist said in the majority opinion that the
government could have made "special efforts to assure that a particular
piece of mail reaches a particular individual."

But he said the Constitution does not require such a "heroic effort" and
that sending the notice by registered mail was reasonable.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen
Breyer dissented. "The court condones a procedure too lax to reliably
ensure that a prisoner will receive a legal notice sent to him," they said.