RESTORE PROPERTY RIGHTS STOLEN BY DRUG WARRIORS

The Michigan Supreme Court has an opportunity to reconnect the idea
of punishment with actual convictions for crimes. The so-called drug
war has separated the two -- in violation of an essential feature of
Anglo-American law.

Under the rules of the drug war, property can be seized from citizens
without their being found guilty of a crime. The government gets away
with this by calling the seizures "civil" forfeitures. There's
nothing civil about them.

This week, the state Supreme Court heard arguments about the seizure
of more than $180,000 from the rented car of Tamika Smith in 2002.
She was headed west on Interstate 94 and was stopped for speeding.
She was also driving with a suspended license.

A state trooper searched her car, without her consent, and found the
money in a backpack in the trunk. No drugs, guns or other illegal
material was found in the car. Nevertheless, the money was seized.

A trial judge acknowledged that the money was seized improperly, in
violation of Smith's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search
and seizure.

Nevertheless, following testimony that I-94 is a corridor for the
illicit drug trade, which is a cash business, the trial judge allowed
the forfeiture. It was also shown that Smith at the time did not have
a large amount in savings and had on several occasions rented a car
for short trips to Chicago.

All of this is suspicious. But it is not conclusive.

Smith was not carrying illegal drugs or guns. The only thing police
could show was that Smith was speeding and driving with a suspended
license. These are not $180,000 offenses.

Her role as a possible drug money courier, for the purposes of this
case, remains police speculation. She was not convicted of anything
related to the drug trade.

Still, under Michigan law, it is now too much to ask of police and
prosecutors that they actually obtain a conviction in a criminal case
before they seize property.

The fact that they can keep the seized money for their own budgets is
not thought to be too much of an incentive to engage in illegal
searches and take things without warrants.

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? What happened to
the burden of proof being on the state?

These foundations of American law have been given up in the course of
our failed "war on drugs."

The state Supreme Court in this case has a chance to restore these
rights. They need not look far for the authority to restore them.
They're right in the U.S. Constitution.