A PRETEXT FOR CONFISCATION

The story of Dr. Metzger's Lexus should remind everyone that the nation's
asset forfeiture laws put everyone's liberties at risk.

James R. Metzger is a Golden physician. According to the Drug Enforcement
Administration, he has admitted writing prescriptions in other peoples'
names for medicines containing narcotics, and then taking the drugs
himself. And -- this is where the Lexus comes in -- he also admitted
driving to various pharmacies to pick up the prescriptions.

Whether Metzger did what the DEA said he admitted, or whether his actions
were criminal if he did, has not been legally determined; he has not even
been charged, let alone convicted. But from other information it can be
inferred that the DEA's allegations are plausible. Metzger has, his father
says, recently completed treatment at a drug rehabilitation center.

The DEA, in any case, told the court it had probable cause to believe
Metzger's 1999 Lexus RX300 sport utility vehicle had been involved in a
crime. And under the forfeiture law, that gives the agency power to
confiscate it. The absence of criminal charges against Metzger is
irrelevant, said DEA spokesman Dennis Follett.

And so it is, which is why the law urgently needs to be changed. Rep. Henry
Hyde, R-Ill., has regularly sponsored bills to accomplish this; the most
recent passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives in July. But a
companion bill languishes in the Senate Judiciary Committee -- in fact,
some senators want the forfeiture laws made stronger -- and the Clinton
administration has said flatly that if Congress does pass a bill the
president will veto it.

The original justification for this drug-war strategy was to confiscate
assets earned through drug trafficking. The principle that criminals should
not profit from their crimes is fair enough. But law enforcement agencies
soon discovered they could profit instead. Would the DEA have gone after
Metzger's car if he were driving a beat-up old Toyota Camry?

There's no need for pesky legal necessities like due process. In up to 80
percent of an estimated 60,000 annual forfeitures, no one is ever charged.
Thirty percent of them have nothing to do with drugs.

Prosecutors have also noticed that when a defendant's assets are
confiscated before he is convicted, he can't use them to finance an
effective legal defense.

It's property that is seized, and property has no constitutional rights.
The owner of the property has to prove it is innocent of any involvement in
crime. That's so difficult, and so expensive, that only about 15 percent of
owners even try to get their property back.

And the property need not be the proceeds of illegal actions. An incidental
connection, like the one that snared Metzger's Lexus, is sufficient legal
justification.

"These statutes are so broadly written that in principle they are
boundless," said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional
Studies at the Cato Institute. "Law and medical practices have been seized."

Could the DEA confiscate Safeway because that's where Metzger allegedly
tried to fill his prescriptions? It had as much to do with the transaction
as the Lexus did.

DEA officials are hinting that there may be more to Metzger's story than
has appeared so far. Fine. At least they should have to prove it in court
before they drive away in his car.