WHY SHOULDN'T ALL OF US HAVE SEIZURE POWERS?

Thursday, April 04, 2002 - Law enforcement officials stated this week that
it's reasonable for them to have the power to seize property from suspected
offenders without being forced to go before a judge to prove the guilt of
the accused.

As the Colorado legislature seeks to curb this practice, representatives of
various local police, sheriff's and district attorney's offices staged a
news conference Monday to argue that the power to confiscate allows them to
"put people out of business who are a blight to our community," that it was
"only fair" that criminals be deprived of their ill-gotten gains and that
"financially strapped" law enforcement agencies should be permitted to use
the property they seize.

I'm reminded of a movie comedy I saw years ago during which a teenager
employed in a fast food restaurant was assigned to burger-building duty in
the kitchen rather than serving customers up front.

He complained: "How am I supposed to make any money if I'm not working the
register?"

The media, the lawmen said, have erroneously reported that some of the
money has been spent on pizza parties and other inappropriate items.

Unfortunately, no one knows for sure, because most of the agencies have
failed (in violation of state law) to file annual reports revealing how
much property they seized and how the proceeds were spent.

We might as well put traffic cops on commission. They can collect cash on
the side of the road, and we won't demand an accounting of how much loot
they got.

The problems in Colorado's current forfeiture laws come on several fronts:
First, law enforcement agencies don't have to wait for a conviction to
seize the property; second, the agency gets to keep the proceeds from the
seizure, and third, even if the accused is acquitted, he might not get his
property back.

Imagine if regular people could exercise this sort of power.

Let's say there's a house on your street that you suspect is being used as
a drug den. You've watched people walk in and out of that house, and you're
positive about what's going on inside. One day, you decide enough is
enough. You get your gun and march down the block to perform a citizen's
arrest.

You handcuff the suspect and deliver him to the police department, then go
back to his house and "seize" all the property that you believe was
purchased with the ill-gotten money.

You take his car, cell phone, bicycle, television, furnishings, artwork,
jewelry, cash and anything else that you think was connected to the crime.

You use the proceeds however you see fit, and the beautiful part of all
this is that even if your neighbor is found innocent, you still don't have
to return his property.

This sort of policy seems obviously wrong when placed in the hands of
ordinary citizens, but somehow when the same power is given to law
enforcement it seems OK.

But what are police officers except ordinary citizens with badges and
mandated authority?

Are they smarter than the rest of us? More reliable? Less likely to make a
mistake?

If a police officer can be counted on to use his best judgment in seizing
property, then couldn't regular citizens be trusted with that power?

House Bill 1404 seeks to bring Colorado's forfeiture laws back in line with
the promise of due process in the U.S. Constitution. The bill would
institute a host of common-sense protections to make sure the rights of
individual citizens are protected.

Among other things, the bill would require law-enforcement agencies to
produce "clear and convincing evidence" before a seizure would be granted;
the rights of innocent co-owners would be protected (e.g. a landlord who
wasn't aware his tenant was committing crimes); the seizure would have to
be proportionate to the offense; and most importantly, the seizing agency
wouldn't be able to keep all the proceeds.