FORFEITURE OF PROCEEDS FROM HOME SALE FITS CRIME

George was arrested for illegally selling cocaine. He pleaded guilty
and was sentenced to two years in prison. In addition, the U.S.
government sought forfeiture of his house, where a buried jar with two
ounces of cocaine was found, along with $1,000 in marked bills, given
to George for a purchase.

With agreement of all parties, the house was sold. After paying off
the mortgage lender, $48,972.31 remained. The government sought
forfeiture of this amount. George argued that this is an excessive
fine under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

If you were the judge, would you rule forfeiture of the $48,972.31 to
be an excessive fine?

The judge said no.

Considering the facts of this case, the judge began, there is ample
evidence that the house was involved in the criminal activity. For a
property to be forfeited, there must be ``a reasonable relationship
not only to the offense but to the offender,'' he noted.

The government must prove both that the property was involved in the
crime and that its forfeiture is not grossly disproportionate to the
crime, he explained. Since George pleaded guilty to distribution and
possession of cocaine from his house, he was obviously dealing in
drugs there, the judge emphasized.

This was a serious crime and his culpability is great, the judge
noted. Although the court sentenced George to the minimum penalty, a
fine of $48,972.31 in forfeited home equity is not excessive, the
judge ruled.

Based on the 1998 U.S. District Court decision in U.S. v. One Parcel
of Real Property, 4 Fed.Supp.2d 65.

Robert J. Bruss is a Bay Area lawyer and real estate
broker.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady