THE BIGGER LOSS

An airplane broker's story puts a face on the property seizure
problem.

It's always easier to understand the implication of a law when you
hear about someone who has felt its impact.

Jim Spurlock is such a person. He's an airplane broker. In 1991 and
1992, the U.S. Customs Service seized two of his clients' jets because
of a paperwork error.

The federal government began confiscating money from drug dealers in
the 1970s. But it was not only money -- other assets can be seized as
well. In the Northern District of Texas, it happens about 130 times a
year.

Few would quarrel with hitting the crooks where it hurts. The problem
is that the original law under which these seizures took place swept
with a wide broom. Prosecutors only had to show that there was
probable cause that property was involved in a crime or bought with
illegal money. Owners had to prove that they were innocent to get
their property back.

The arguments have not been so much against the seizure as against the
level of evidence that authorities have to show in order to be able to
seize property.

Customs agents seized two airplanes that Spurlock had sold to two
Brazilian businessmen because, Spurlock says, the businessmen
mistakenly indicated that they were owned by a U.S.
corporation.

Customs officials later told U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm that they suspected
the businessmen and the pilot of drug smuggling and money laundering.

"One of the sinister parts was they never arrested the people,
investigated them or charged them with the crime," Spurlock said. "All
they wanted was the property."

The law has been changed now and will require a higher standard of
proof before such seizures can take place. The bill is awaiting
President Clinton's signature. The standard still is not high enough
- -- but this bill is one step.

It is a crucial one, summed up well by Spurlock in a `Star-Telegram
story. He said that his customers only lost an airplane.

"I lost my Constitution."