FORFEITURE ABUSE IS A FORFEIT OF OUR RIGHTS

In the Constitution of these United States, it is written:

In Article IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In Article V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . . .
nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.

In Article XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law. . . .

You might think that the words are plain and speak for themselves: In
America, no one can take your property except through a legal process
involving a finding of guilt.

But don't kid yourself. Today these words all too often ring hollow as the
federal government, the states, counties and cities across the land avail
themselves of the opportunity to sequester private property -- cash, houses,
boats -- under laws enacted by the Congress in the 1980s as a way to combat
the power of major drug lords.

It seemed a good idea at the time to deny the chieftains of the drug trade
the weaponry of their ill-gotten wealth to keep them out of the laws'
clutches. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the legality of these
forfeiture laws, which also had precedent in English common law, even though
the Constitution's language would have you believe that a person is innocent
until proven guilty.

What is happening is that administrative actions, based on nothing more than
allegations of criminality, and not court trials are taking property from
people who many times are set free and not even prosecuted for offenses
under which their possessions were taken.

Over the years, the forfeiture has become attractive to law enforcement
ostensibly because it helps to discourage crime by showing potential
lawbreakers the kind of personal penalties they face. At the same time,
police and municipal authorities have enriched their operations with the
forfeited monies, which by this time probably amount to many hundreds of
millions of dollars.

As a result, police authorities have been provided with a self-interest
incentive to find excuses to seize property. One sheriff went so far at to
use such money to buy himself a camouflage shirt. Others acquire
state-of-the-art crime-fighting equipment that they don't need and which no
right-minded municipal authority would agree to pay for.

But even when abuses are not apparent, there are few accountability
procedures in place anywhere to monitor how the forfeited money is spent.

Horror stories abound across the expanse of the nation of how people falsely
accused or tangentially involved in alleged crimes are deprived of their
property without ever having been charged, or tried, never mind convicted of
a crime. The net of forfeiture has ensnared a lot more people than the
intended mobster drug kingpins.

According to a report by the Omaha, Neb., World Herald, a Californian's
200-acre scenic estate in Malibu was raided in 1992 by police on the theory
that he was growing marijuana. "Brandishing a gun to stave off what he
thought were criminal intruders,'' the owner was shot to death. The account
went on to say that investigation showed "the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit
the ranch for the government,'' which was coveted by the National Park
Service.

These days, forfeiture laws are being extended to apply to those accused,
but not tried and convicted, of drunken driving. The rationale is that an
auto in the control of a drunken driver is as much an illegal weapon as a
gun used in a holdup. Never mind that the car might not be the property of
the person behind the wheel.

In New York City, even if drivers are found not guilty of the offense, their
cars won't necessarily be returned to them. And this appears to be legal,
under the reasoning that civil forfeiture is governed by different rules
than apply in a criminal case.

The spreading of the practice and the piling up of evidence of abuses and
injustices has coalesced civil rights advocates and politicians such as Rep.
Henry Hyde, of impeachment fame, who are pushing for reforms of the
forfeiture laws, mainly by mandating that government has to show "clear and
convincing evidence'' for taking the property and providing legal assistance
to those deprived of property who can't afford lawyers to represent their
interests.

The Supreme Court itself, in a recent decision, limited the scope of its
approval of the laws, declaring that the forfeiture must not be "grossly
disproportional'' to whatever law is alleged to have been violated.

As compelling as is the need to quash the drug trade and drunken driving,
surrendering precious civil rights is not the way to do it. Constitutional
strictures exist precisely to constrain government from wielding arbitrary
powers over the citizenry.