FORFEITURE LAWS GRATE ON CONSTITUTION

CASPER, Wyo.
To see how money corrupts law enforcement agencies, look at the effects of
asset forfeiture laws. A police officer can take all the money you are
carrying and the car you are driving when stopped -- on the mere suspicion
that you are a drug dealer -- yet never charge you with a crime. And it will
take you years and thousands of dollars to recover your property -- if it is
even possible to recover it. Your car may have been sold already or badly
damaged.

In such forfeiture, called a civil asset forfeiture because you were never
charged with a crime, you must prove in a court of law that the money and
the car are legally yours and were never involved in some crime.

In other words, you have to prove you are an innocent party -- and, stupid
as it sounds, you may have to prove that your property is innocent, too. The
government doesn't have to prove you were guilty of anything.

While it may be easy to prove you are the legal owner of the car, it is far
more difficult to prove the money you were carrying is money you earned at
your job. Imagine how hard it would be to prove your car or money were never
used to facilitate a crime.

An attorney can cost you thousands of dollars to sue for recovery of your
property. Legal counsel is not provided in such cases.

Many people in similar situations simply let it go and don't try to recover
their property. Why spend $6,000 on attorney fees to recover $5,000?

Federal, state and local law enforcement officials put the money gained from
forfeitures into their agencies' accounts and buy new police cars, hire more
law enforcement agents and, in some instances, use the ill-gained dollars to
throw self-congratulatory parties or buy trucks and sports cars for members
of the law enforcement team to keep as their own.

The preeminent constitutional scholar Leonard W. Levy calls the current laws
of asset forfeiture "A License to Steal," the title of his 1996 book on the
subject of forfeitures of property. And, indeed, they are.

The evidence of the misuse of these forfeiture laws is compelling. The
evidence demands a change in the laws. The civil forfeiture laws are
unAmerican. They attack the basic right of property and individual
ownership. No matter what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, at heart, these
civil forfeiture laws are unconstitutional. Under the current federal
forfeiture statutes no law-abiding citizen's property is safe from seizure.

The 1984 Comprehensive Forfeiture Act, passed by Congress, turned law
enforcement officers into pirates -- the spoils being the property of
innocent citizens. The American Civil Liberties Union states that "nearly 80
percent of the victims of forfeiture have never been indicted of a crime."

On April 5, 1992, the Pittsburgh Press reported that Tracy Thomas had
$13,000 taken from her by local police. The police were searching for drugs
allegedly sold by Thomas' godson. A state judge ordered police to return the
money to Thomas. Instead, the police turned the money over to the Drug
Enforcement Administration which is immune to the state courts order.

On Aug. 2, 1992, the Orlando Sentinel reported that Ken Brown's Florida
business, Chemco International, was raided because agents of the DEA found
his company's labels in a methamphetamine lab. The chemicals Brown sold are
legal to sell in small quantities. Among his customers were the U.S. Forest
Service and the Florida State Fish and Game Commission. DEA agents raided
Brown's home because an informant described Brown as the leader of a
motorcycle gang. Federal agents used the forfeiture laws to seize Brown's
business, $300,000 in inventory, his home and cars. Brown was never
convicted of a drug crime. The DEA offered to release his house and cars to
Brown, if he surrendered his legitimate business.

On Jan. 4, 1993, Newsweek reported that Gary and Kathy Bergman of South
Dakota had their house taken after federal agents found that a house guest
possessed marijuana. Agents also found traces of marijuana in a car owned by
the Bergmans's daughter. The house was never returned to the Bergmans even
though they were never charged with a federal crime.

On Feb. 18, 1998, the Houston Chronicle reported that federal agents seized
the Red Carpet Inn located in South Houston. A number of customers of the
hotel were accused of drug trafficking. The hotel owners were not accused of
participating in the illegal activity; nevertheless, the hotel was taken.

In 1992, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals admonished the DEA for
assisting the Plaquemines Parish (La.) Sheriff's Office in circumventing
Louisiana law. The sheriff had taken over $12,000 in cash from Jeffery
Scarabin, a suspected drug dealer. All the charges against Scarabin were
dismissed for lack of evidence, yet the sheriff's office never returned the
money taken from Scarabin, even when ordered to do so by a state court.
Someone in the sheriff's office bought a cashier's check for the amount of
money taken from Scarabin. The check was then handed over to the DEA as a
civil forfeiture under federal law.

In 1998, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals accused the Missouri
Highway Patrol and the DEA of conspiring to ignore Missouri law by not
turning over $844,000 seized from Dennis Cole, who had been stopped for
speeding. He was never charged with any drug activities. Newspapers like the
Kansas City Star, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Miami Herald, St. Petersburg
Times, Orlando Sentinel, Hartford Courant, San Jose Mercury News, Louisville
Courier-Journal, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
have all documented various local and regional shady deals law enforcement
agencies at every level have made using civil asset forfeiture laws. Rep.
Henry Hyde, R-Ill., used many of these news reports in his 1995 book,
"Forfeiting Our Property Rights," to prove the law must be changed.

Hyde has sponsored a bill (H.R. 1658), the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
Act, to return some sanity to law enforcement and restore due process to the
current civil asset forfeiture laws. On June 24, the bill passed in the
House by an overwhelming majority, 375 to 48. It has been read in the Senate
twice and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

The bill requires law enforcement agencies to have greater proof of criminal
activity before seizing property. It provides court-appointed attorneys so
that citizens can challenge a forfeiture without cost to themselves. The
bill gives property owners who have been found innocent, or never charged, a
right to get their seized property back in a specific, short time period.
And the bill provides compensation to property owners for damage to their
property or for the loss of that property when it was in government control.

Time to call your senators and demand a quick passage of Hyde's forfeiture
reform bill. The longer we wait, the greater the risk to your property --
the greater the risk to honest law enforcement.

Charles Levendosky is editorial page editor of the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune.