DRUG FORFEITURE PRACTICE RAISES ETHICS, FREEDOM ISSUES

When the free press reveals that officials within our public institutions
are engaged in questionable conduct, the citizenry's suspicion of
government -- present since 1776 -- is further heightened; an erosion of
public trust and confidence follows.

The Kansas City Star's "Protect and Collect" series (May 21-22, A-1) about
the artifice used by police departments, including Kansas City's, to get
around the state's rule of law governing drug forfeitures, is such an
example. Most readers would agree that when the rule of law is undermined,
respect for all government declines, as Joel S. Heller wrote in "Seizure
laws," his May 28 letter to the editor.

In defense of courts, it is a non sequitur to use the series as a basis for
the conclusion " ... when the courts show so little respect for
righteousness ... " as Heller did. Our courts were never constituted by our
forefathers to serve as the righteous daily supervisors or watchdogs of
police operations or their ethics. Executive branch officials (mayors, city
administrators) were established to perform that task.

Courts, as the third branch of government, were designed to stand between
government operatives and accused individuals to protect individual
liberty, i.e. as in legislatively mandated court hearings in drug-seizure
cases.

All readers should be clear on the fact that the Police Department serving
Kansas City is governed by a state agency, pursuant to Missouri law, as
Kurt Hoffman said in "Improper forfeitures," his May 29 letter to the
editor -- a board of police commissioners appointed by the governor.

Departments participating in the practice described have compromised their
operating ethics where legislatively adopted public policy requires court
hearings before forfeiture.

Because of Star publicity, will commissioners and police commanders now
step up to their ethics responsibility and order an end to the practice
reported? Or will they continue to ignore, for short-term department gain,
such adopted public policy? If the latter, can any department afford the
resulting erosion of its public credibility, as letter writer Heller asks?

Can future department budget operating needs be met in the face of
unanswered public questions about the use to which such seized money was put?

Is any price to be paid where the ethics compromised by these public
agencies damages the public trust? Can that price be paid without impairing
the strong law enforcement effort all citizens rely upon for the safety of
streets, neighborhoods and highways?

Consider the price already paid by: 1) all of us in erosion of our
collective, Fourth Amendment constitutional freedom against unlawful police
search and seizure; 2) those whose property was forfeited without court
awareness and a "constitutional property rights" court hearing; 3) those
children denied forfeited funds for their education in a world of never
enough educational funding; 4) character influences on them and others who
have learned of the police compromise; 5) the erosion of student reliance
on "Officer Friendly" and DARE school program messages because they learned
that the "line has become blurred between the good and the bad guys," as
Star columnist Mike Hendricks wrote on May 24?

Locally, will Kansas City's state commissioners address these ethics and
erosion of freedom issues? Letter writer Hoffman suggested that it is time
to hear from them or from Missouri's governor. I agree. That's my opinion.
Perhaps you share it.

Thomas E. Sims served as a judge on the Kansas City Municipal Court for 25
years before retiring in 1995. He was responsible for the creation of a
separate court docket on domestic violence and he was the first judge on
that docket.