CONVICT FIRST, BEFORE TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY

When police and prosecutors confiscate cars and cash from drug pushers,
it's easy to cheer. Depriving them of their ill-gotten gains can serve as a
powerful deterrent.

But what if the person is innocent? Or only suspected of selling illegal
drugs? Should law-enforcement authorities be able to seize their property,
sell it and reap the profits?

Under current state law, the answer is yes. Fortunately, a bipartisan
coalition of lawmakers wants to change this practice. They've introduced
legislation that would require a criminal conviction before government can
seize private property.

It's a long-overdue move that shifts the burden of proof back where it
belongs: on the prosecution.

The current practice flies in the face of Fifth Amendment rights against
being ``deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law.'' It also upends the basic premise of American criminal justice: that
you're innocent until proven guilty.

In our zeal to crack down on illegal drugs, we've also taken aim at civil
liberties. We've allowed police officers and local prosecutors to
confiscate homes, cars, boats and other property from people suspected of
manufacturing, transporting or selling drugs.

We also gave police agencies an incentive to confiscate property from
suspected drug-dealers. Under state law amended in 1992, law-enforcement
agencies could keep or sell the seized assets unless the owner was able to
prevail under a civil appeals process. As a result, the budgets of local
police departments and state anti-drug programs have benefited by nearly
$45 million in that time.

Not surprisingly, law-enforcement agencies don't want the property
forfeiture laws changed. They believe it gives them a particularly
effective crime-fighting tool and also a means to keep financing their war
against drug pushers.

However, the battle against illegal drugs should not mean depriving
individuals -- even those suspected of being drug kingpins -- of due process.

Senate Bill 5935 and its companion in the House, HB 1995, would change our
state's seizure and forfeiture laws for the better. They would allow
property to be taken only after the owner is convicted and a determination
is made that the assets to be seized were found ``by clear and convincing
evidence to have been instrumental in committing or facilitating the
crime.'' Property used for evidence, such as drug paraphernalia, is
exempted, of course.

Sponsors of this legislation include liberal Democrats and conservative
Republicans.

We encourage lawmakers from both parties to pass SB 5935 and its companion
bill in the House. Property should be secure from the government unless a
person's guilt can be proved in a court of law.