INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY

Law enforcement agencies ought to be quicker than they usually are to admit
a mistake. They only invite disrespect when they subject an individual to
all the inconvenience of a criminal investigation, find no basis for
prosecution and then begrudge the targeted person's attempts to make
himself whole.

It has happened at least twice in recent months in connection with drug
surveillance at Eppley Airfield. In each case, officers intercepted an
individual who was carrying an unusual amount of cash. They seized the cash
and interrogated the person.

Neither individual was prosecuted. But one had to take the police to court
to get his money back. The other had to sign an agreement that he would not
sue the government for violating his civil rights.

Some defenders of the system argue that the seizure of property is a
legitimate tool in narcotics law enforcement. Often, they say, a drug
runner can be put out of business, even in situations where the evidence is
insufficient to prosecute, by applying a federal law that allows the
seizure of property used in the commission of a crime.

Perhaps that's a good thing. But it's also a dangerous tool, as both
Congress and the courts have recognized. Even with the safeguards they have
put in place in recent years, there is something fundamentally distasteful
- - illogical, even - about a system that allows the police and prosecutors
to mete out what amounts to a sentence in the absence of a conviction.
Americans fought hard for the presumption of innocence. The government
should not punish them unless they are convicted.

The two Omaha cases were further muddied by the fact that neither
individual is white and both accused the authorities of singling them out
because of their race.

Racial profiling is a difficult accusation to prove and an irresponsible
one to fling about on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. However,
the situation is made worse by the failure of law enforcement agencies to
communicate better. If they are wrong, they should say so and fix whatever
went wrong. If they are right, they ought to find a way to inform the
public. The very fact that they are so reluctant to talk about cases in
which they are accused of wrongdoing, racial or otherwise, makes them
appear suspect. This undermines respect for the law and contributes to the
fragmentation of society.

How interesting it is that, in this age in which politicians are always
apologizing for someone else, there is a dearth of sincere, heartfelt
apology for one's own wrongdoing.

Blame our lawsuit-happy society for that. Some lawyers now advise their
clients never to admit that they made a mistake, to never apologize lest it
be used against them as an admission of liability. So even some situations
that could be cleared up using the human touch - explanation, apology and
forgiveness - now roil along for months, creating hard feelings and
sometimes ultimately leading to lawsuits anyway.

No one is suggesting that the authorities give up a useful crime-fighting
tool. But there ought to be some mechanism by which government can make
right its mistreatment, inadvertent or otherwise, of private citizens. A
simple apology would do for starters. And certainly, if you can't establish
that the seizure of someone's money is lawful, or if you find out that a
person really wasn't a drug runner in the first place, don't drag your feet
when he asks for the return of what is rightfully his.