THE LORD GIVETH, THE COPS TAKETH AWAY

It's a short drive between Oakland and San Francisco, Calif. -- unless you
don't have a car. And, not entirely coincidentally, if you're looking to
lose one, the Oakland police can certainly oblige; the same will go for the
city across the Bay if a town elder at the Golden Gates gets his way.

As currently allowed by Oakland city ordinance, if a john or junkie prowls
the streets in search of a fix, the police can not only arrest the offender
but take his car, too. Police, according to the Sept. 18 San Francisco
Chronicle, "conduct their car seizure operations, called 'Operation Beat
Feet,' in various neighborhoods about twice a month. About 80 percent of the
cars seized belong to alleged drug buyers, and the rest to alleged johns."

Following the lead of Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, across the Bay another
Brown is recommending a similar course of action. Citing people's "right to
peace, tranquility and safety in their neighborhoods," San Francisco
Supervisor Amos Brown wants cars used in drug buys to be labeled "public
nuisances" and subject to confiscation and sale.

How much of a public nuisance are these cars? Brown, who is also a Baptist
minister, likens the cars of drug users and sellers to the chariots of
Pharaoh's army. And his proposed ordinance? According to the Chronicle,
Brown compares his plan to God knocking the wheels off Pharaoh's chariots.
"Removing the transportation of evildoers also helps stop evil, Brown said."

Frisco car filchers are excited about the possibility of approval for the
plan. The proposal cleared a major obstacle Tuesday when the city's Housing
and Social Policy Committee voted -- without actually taking a position on
the measure -- to send the legislation to the Board of Supervisors for
consideration next week.

I guess the cops and city-government Pooh-Bahs figure as long as we're
scrapping the Fourth Amendment, we might as well get a good start on the
Fifth.

Most people think the Fifth Amendment means you don't have to tell the jury
you robbed the pizza deliveryman or embezzled all that money from your
uncle's carpet cleaning company. True. We've seen enough Perry Mason
episodes and Clinton-scandal grand jury appearances to know the line: "I
refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me." And while
"weasel protection" is covered in the Fifth, so is another vital protection
- -- the takings clause:

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation."

Notice how that never says, "Unless we're talking drugs; in which case, the
cops can take whatever they want."

That, however, is certainly how law enforcement seems to read the amendment.
Just last month, Aug. 21, city councilors in Albuquerque, N.M., extended to
police the right to seize the homes of parents whose children host beer
bashes or pinch dad's Jim Beam for drunken revelries.

"Underage drinking is a big problem," said the city councilor who sponsored
the measure. "If there's anything we can do to curb this phenomenon in our
community, we should do it."

Even if it means wearing out a pencil-top eraser on the Constitution? Of
course. We've got to stop the scourge of illegal doping and underage
boozing, and, as the aforequoted Albuquerque councilman so eloquently points
out, "This gives us a hammer."

It's one of those situations where the Fifth Amendment is now void where
prohibited by law.

Undoubtedly, the current seizure-fever mentality of police at all levels of
American government can be traced back to Reagan's war on drugs in the '80s.
"Conservatives did not realize that the main result of their efforts would
be the routine confiscation of the assets of the innocent," Paul Craig
Roberts explains in his Sept. 14 Creators' syndicate column. "Frustrated by
the difficulty of deterring drug trafficking, conservatives decided that
suppressing the drug trade was more important than the U.S. Constitution."

How so? The federal Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 paved the way for
government seizure of any property connected to a drug crime -- a drug
dealer's car, a buyer's house, whatever.

"The confiscation," explains Roberts, "is permitted regardless of whether
the owner participated in illegal drug activity or was aware that others had
brought drugs to his property. Moreover, no proof is needed. To seize
property, law-enforcement officials need only claim 'probable cause' for
their discretionary actions."

And you can blow Lady Justice a kiss goodbye on ever getting any. With
federal forfeiture greatly expanding ever since 1984 (some 140 other federal
statutes now qualify for a state snatch in case of lawbreaking), justice is
getting the middle finger.

"Property is being seized without a hearing, and people can permanently lose
their cars without ever being convicted of a crime," says American Civil
Liberties Union attorney Alan Schlosser about Oakland's car-nabbing policy.
"There's no presumption of innocence, so the burden is on you." And what
about all that due process and Fifth-Amendment guaranteed "just
compensation"? Keep dreaming. According to the July 25 Fresno Bee, the First
District Court of Appeals ruled Oakland's ordinance constitutionally kosher;
neither, according to the court, does it violate any state law.

Unless the State Supreme Court hears the appeal, you'd better plan on
driving a rental next time you visit the city. As of July, Oakland had
confiscated 350 cars and auctioned off more than 280 of them.

Worse yet, think of this: Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., points out that in 80
percent of asset forfeiture cases, no charges are filed against those whose
property is confiscated -- and the cops get to keep the stuff they filch.
Seizure victims must sue the government to get back their possessions,
something most people cannot afford to do. In other words, you could be
entirely innocent but still unable to get justice. Maybe not all, but few
people can afford to fight city hall. And those that can suffer as well.

Eric Kinney's car was nabbed when he was caught in a 1999 sting operation,
allegedly trying to score two grams of ganja. Oakland police seized his 1989
Ford Ranger on the spot; the vehicle was worth about $5,000. According to
the Sept. 20 San Francisco Examiner, he eventually got his truck returned to
the tune of $2 grand in legal fees. "This was very traumatic," recounted
Kinney. What's more, he was never convicted.

Given the rewards, it should surprise no one that government will vigorously
defend its confiscations. After going through the proper channels, money
seized often makes its way back into the police budget; it can be a
considerable boon for the city purse. While an Oakland official tries to
reassure that car-snatching "is not a big moneymaker for us," the city has
still raked in some $321,000 since the program started in 1997. Not bad for
a small moneymaker. Other scores are still far more profitable.

In 1998, Ohio State Highway patrolmen stopped a car for speeding and got
plenty more than the paltry ticket revenue. After searching the vehicle,
police discovered marijuana seed and $150,000. Ever-dutiful, the patrolmen
turned the money over to the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. The DEA kept
less than $30 grand and sent the rest back to the Ohio State Highway Patrol
- -- net profit of more than $120,000 for pulling over a single car. Not bad
for a day's work.

There are more than a few problems here, however. "Police have become
addicted to seizure money," according to Hoover Institution scholar Joseph
McNamara, also the former police chief of both Kansas City and San Jose.
Kind of a perverse incentive -- seize a car, cash or house and keep them for
the department. Even with recent changes in federal law, local governments
stand to prosper greatly from forfeiture, regardless of the guilt of the
suspect.

But, beyond being used to bolster policing budgets, drug dough sometimes
goes to completely ridiculous items, as well. A state audit in Kansas
recently turned up record of forfeiture money going toward crayons and
coloring books for a drug education program; several hundred dollars,
according to the Sept. 18 Kansas City Star, actually went to purchase a
remote-control door opener for a police dog.

Might as well let the mutt pee on James Madison's pant leg.

And abuse, as usual, is not unheard of. "One agency actually had disposed of
drug money before a judge declared it legally confiscated," reports Karen
Dillon in the Sept. 18 Star. "Another agency improperly deposited state and
federal money into a local bank account instead of its law enforcement trust
fund, as the law requires."

"It is very sad," says McNamara, "and very dangerous to civil liberties."

Think back to Esau trading his birthright to his brother Jacob for a mess of
porridge. That's what conservatives have done. Faced with the immediate
concern of solving America's drug problems, conservatives traded the
Constitution -- with its glorious protections, its cherished role in our
history and tradition of defending individual rights and liberties -- for
drug-control policies that have gone sour in our mouths, turned freedom to
tyranny and destroyed the Bill of Rights.

Though, thank the Lord, unlike Esau, America may still be able to regain its
birthright. To do so, however, will require that we dump this bowl of pork
'n' beans we've traded for the Constitution and begin working toward ending
our liberty-squelching war on drugs.