DRUG-RELATED PROPERTY SEIZURE LAW NEEDS REWRITING TO OBSERVE CONSTITUTION

Have you ever considered something so obvious that to state - and restate
it - might insult a person's intelligence?

Consider this.

"A citizen should be 'charged and convicted' of a crime - not just
'suspected' of one - before the law takes his property."

As logical as that sounds, Washington state law enforcement, taking its cue
from the federal government's "Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984," has
been legally snatching all manner of booty for years - all under cover of
the war on drugs.

No proof of dealing is needed. All the law needs is "probable cause."
People in high places have been aware of the unfairness of the practice -
and the potential for abuse - for years.

In 1999, as the U.S. House debated this very issue, U.S. Rep. Bob Barr
(R-Ga.) said: "In many jurisdictions it has become a monetary tail wagging
the law enforcement dog." U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said the custom was
"a throwback to the old Soviet Union."

Still, despite bipartisan recognition of malfeasance run amok, Washington
state is only now beginning to deal with this drug war- induced blight,
thanks to state Senate Bill 5935 from Sen. Dow Constantine (D-West Seattle).

The bill, encouraged by the American Civil Liberties Union, would require
that a person actually be convicted of a crime before law enforcement takes
his property and that seized drug money be used only to treat addicts.

During testimony before the House State Government Committee, ACLU lobbyist
Jerry Sheehan, said that "the state should get out of the business of
seizing property from people who are never charged with a crime - let alone
convicted." He said the practice is a "cancer on our society" and a
"perversion of our justice system."

Some, like Larry Erickson, executive director of the Washington Association
of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, disagreed and even took offense.

"We're not corrupt," he said. "We're not thieves. We don't sneak around in
the middle of the night taking your property."

But it's the law itself that's corrupt and improper - not the police
officers charged with enforcing it. Punishment before conviction is akin to
the old Soviet Union's gulag justice.

Erickson then said something I would imagine he wishes he hadn't, in
retrospect. He said law enforcement agencies have "safeguards to make sure
agents don't improperly seize property."

That statement was made despite numerous examples of those "safeguards"
simply not working.

And Erickson said an appeals process allows those whose property has been
taken to contest the forfeitures.

Ah, yes. The appeal. Can you imagine how difficult it must be to defend
yourself against the deep pockets of the government when all your assets
have been seized? How do you pay the attorney?

Last year Washington state and local law enforcement agencies pocketed
about $4 million worth of confiscated assets. But there are some things
money can't buy - civil liberties being among them.

Sure, drug dealers are bad people who, sometimes, make a lot of illegal
money off the souls of addicted citizens.

Sure, dealers should be busted and their immorally gained assets seized -
after conviction.

And no one is suggesting that law enforcement is a cabal of corrupt thieves.

But these drug seizure laws are odious. And with big, easy money at stake,
it's difficult for a perpetually cash-strapped law enforcement agency to
not want to visit the feedbag.

It's also difficult for the process to not become institutionalized when
the state gets 10 percent of the take. Gov. Gary Locke reportedly likes
House Bill 1186, which would designate the Washington National Guard a "law
enforcement agency," letting it collect its share of seized drug assets.

The National Guard? A law enforcement agency? Is there no end to the madness?

Maybe SB 5935 moves us in the right direction. Pass it, end gulag justice
in Washington and let's go back to a simpler way of life - like, "innocent
until proven guilty."