HIGH COURT RULING LETS DRUG DEALER KEEP LAND

The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a Bucks County man did not have
to surrender his entire million-dollar property because of a 1995 conviction
for selling marijuana from his home.

The high court rejected the Bucks County district attorney's attempt to have
all of Cyrus Kinney's 24-acre Buckingham Township property forfeited. It
said the commonwealth was entitled to seize only Kinney's house and two
surrounding acres on Anderson Road that were directly related to the crime.
The court upheld lower-court rulings that the remaining 22 acres were not
subject to seizure.

"I am happy beyond words," said Albert J. Cepparulo, Kinney's attorney.
"This has been a long and arduous battle, and I believe the Supreme Court is
right on target in telling the district attorney that the seizure in this
case was excessive and illegal." Cepparulo said that the house and two acres
were worth about $200,000, and that the remaining land was worth about
$800,000.

The case marked the first time that Pennsylvania's high court has ruled that
a partial forfeiture can be ordered if seizing an entire property would be
considered excessive.

Bucks County District Attorney Alan Rubenstein said he was not disappointed
by the ruling, although he said he believed Kinney's entire property was
used as "an integral part of his dope-peddling." Rubenstein said he would
seek to subdivide the property and sell the house and two acres at public
auction.

"The people still come out ahead," said Gary Gambardella, chief deputy
district attorney. "He went to jail, and we get his house. We won by a TKO
rather than a knockout."

Kinney, a general contractor, pleaded guilty in May 1995 to dealing
marijuana from his home and was sentenced to one to two years in prison by
Common Pleas Court Judge Ward F. Clark. Kinney fought the state's seizure of
any of his property.

Clark limited the forfeiture to the property directly related to the
criminal activity and excluded 22 acres that he deemed unrelated. Both sides
appealed to Commonwealth Court, which upheld Clark's ruling. Rubenstein then
appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Rubenstein argued that the drug-forfeiture law did not explicitly provide
for the division of land, and that all property described in the deed must
be forfeited. The high court said the law "plainly limits" forfeiture to
only that property actually "used or intended to be used" in furtherance of
criminal activity.

The court said Rubenstein did not present evidence to indicate that any of
the property excluded by the trial court had ever been used or intended to
be used illicitly.