UNREASONABLE SEIZURES

Legislature Should Review State's Forfeiture Law

Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act is a bad law. It was a bad law a
decade ago when North Port police became embroiled in controversy over
the seizure of money and a car during a traffic stop, and it's a bad
law today, amid growing concerns that Bradenton police have been
carrying the measure to extremes.

The forfeiture act permits law-enforcement agencies to confiscate
cash, vehicles and other assets if there's "probable cause" to believe
that the property was obtained through illegal means.

The rationale for the act -- that authorities should confiscate the
ill-gotten gains of convicted drug dealers and other criminals -- is
sound.

But, in far too many cases, probable cause has been stretched beyond
reasonable interpretation. People who have not been convicted of a
crime, or even charged, have lost cash, cars and other
possessions.

The Legislature needs to re-examine the forfeiture act and take steps
to ensure that innocent people aren't left vulnerable to unreasonable
searches and seizures and other potential abuses.

Too Common a Practice

Newspaper archives and court files are filled with stories of people
who have had money and other belongings seized under questionable
circumstances.

In one of the more egregious examples in our region, North Port police
took $18,523 in cash and a Ford Bronco from a woman in 1995 after
stopping her for erratic driving.

Officials said the seizure was justified because a police dog
indicated that the money and the Bronco had been in contact with
illegal drugs. Police officers found no drugs, however, and produced
no other evidence of her alleged involvement in drug dealing.

In the end, the woman was charged with a traffic violation -- failing
to use due caution. She later recovered $14,523 of the money in a
settlement with North Port.

In another startling case, Manatee County deputies in the now-defunct
anti-drug Delta squad were conducting a search of a house in 1997 when
they spotted a black Ford Mustang GT they decided they'd like to have.
A deputy later admitted to planting crack cocaine in the car in order
to seize it.

Recently, attorneys and constitutional law scholars have questioned
the Bradenton police department's seizure policies.

As the Herald-Tribune's Michael Scarcella and Anthony Cormier have
reported, officers in Bradenton have taken hundreds of thousands of
dollars in cash and property from people who signed a department-
created form waiving their rights to a judicial review of the
confiscations.

Delane Johnson, a 20-year-old Bradenton man, is suing the city for
failing to return $10,200 the police confiscated from him outside a
city apartment in July. Police say they suspected he was involved in
drug dealing, but they found no evidence to support it. They initially
charged him with failing to report a business transaction exceeding
$10,000 but later dropped that charge.

Johnson, it turns out, isn't the only person who has had his property
seized without ever being convicted or, in some cases, even charged
with a crime. The majority of the cases involve cash and property
worth $50 to $5,000, but in some cases the amount has exceeded $100,000.

In the wake of Herald-Tribune reports on the policy, Police Chief
Michael Rad-zilowski said his officers have stopped using the form
pending a review by attorneys.

Court Review

Another type of seizure, employed by Bradenton and Sarasota police,
also warrants closer scrutiny.

Both cities have passed ordinances that enable the police to seize the
vehicles of people suspected of drug dealing and other criminal
activity. The owners must pay fines of $500 to recover their vehicles.
In some cases, they also have to pay impoundment fees to a towing company.

This summer, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a review of the
constitutionality of the practice. While that review is under way,
police in Bradenton and Sarasota -- as well as other law-enforcement
agencies around the state that engage in this practice -- should
suspend the seizures of vehicles in cases that rely on probable cause
as the sole justification.

Law-enforcement agencies certainly need as many tools as possible to
combat drug dealing and other illegal activity.

But in their effort to fight crime, they cannot be allowed to take
shortcuts around requirements designed to protect all of us from abuse.