UNPLEASANT RAMIFICATIONS OF NATION'S WAR ON DRUGS

AND in other news . . . the War on Drugs is ripping up the Constitution,
endangering American liberty and encouraging law enforcement officers to
act like bandits. The unpleasant ramifications of the War on Drugs are too
numerous for one column, but the area of asset forfeiture deserves special
consideration.

On Oct. 2, 1992, a team of officers from the Los Angeles Police
Department, the Park Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
Forest Service, the California National Guard and the California Bureau of
Narcotic Enforcement staged a raid on the home of Donald Scott, a
61-year-old rancher, near Malibu. Armed with high-powered weapons, flak
jackets, a battering ram and a presumably legal search warrant, they kicked
in the door and rushed through the house. Scott's wife began screaming; he
went to her side with a gun and was shot to death before her eyes.

The officers found no marijuana plants, other drugs or paraphernalia. It
turned out that Scott was bitterly opposed to all drug use.

According to the Nation magazine, a subsequent investigation revealed that
there was no credible evidence of marijuana cultivation on Scott's ranch,
that the sheriff's department had knowingly sought the search warrant on
legally insufficient information, and that much of the information
supporting the warrant was false, while exculpatory evidence was withheld
from the judge. As they invaded the property, the officers -- with two
forfeiture specialists in tow -- had a property appraisal of Scott's $5
million ranch and instructions to seize the ranch if 14 marijuana plants
were found.

In a much-noted case, a Detroit woman had her car seized after her husband
was found using it to dally with a prostitute. The Supreme Court upheld
the forfeiture, even though the woman was clearly not involved in her
husband's illegal activity.

A 72-year-old grandmother in Washington, D.C., lost her home after letting
a nephew, who was suspected of drug dealing, stay there overnight.

The owner of an air-charter business in Las Vegas lost his livelihood when
he unknowingly chartered a plane to a drug dealer.

Last year, NBC's ``Dateline'' did a prize-winning expose of the practice of
Louisiana sheriff's deputies stopping motorists with little or no cause and
seizing cars and cash under the state's forfeiture laws. The deputies
started a slush fund with the money. According to ``Dateline,'' deputies
used the fund to pay for a ski trip, pizza and doughnuts; thousands of
dollars were unaccounted for.

According to the Wisconsin State Journal, all this started in 1984, when
Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which allowed drug
money and ``drug-related assets'' to be funneled into the police agencies
that seize them.

Between 1985 and 1991, the Justice Department collected more than $1.5
billion in illegal assets; in the next five years, it almost doubled this
intake, according to a report by the Nation. Local law enforcement
agencies fight to ``federalize'' their drug busts because if a U.S.
attorney ``adopts'' a forfeiture, 80 percent of the assets are returned to
local police, whereas under many state laws, forfeited assets go to school
funds, libraries, drug education or other programs. According to the
Nation, some small-town police forces have increased their budgets by a
factor of five or more through seizing assets.

This is also deforming the efforts to control drugs; police forces can get
far more money by busting small-time marijuana buyers in reverse stings
(where the cops sell drugs to unsuspecting customers) and then seizing
their assets than they can by, say, going after major methamphetamine
dealers who work on street corners.

This entire practice is rapidly becoming worse and worse, causing more and
more injustice, police lawlessness and distorted law enforcement
priorities. This is one of those times when the right and the left can
unite in opposition to government abuse.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association have
opposed these practices. Rep. Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat from
Massachusetts, and Rep. Bob Barr, a conservative Republican from Georgia,
both support reform. The Wall Street Journal is as concerned as the
Nation. Surely the property-rights people, who seem to consider the
Endangered Species Act a threat to liberty, would like to join the ACLU on
this one.

The political problem is that we have created a monster. Law enforcement
just loves asset-forfeiture laws; agencies have practically become
self-financing through these abuses. And when the coppers of the nation
stand in unison and say, ``We need this for law 'n' order,'' mighty few
politicians are willing to go against them. (Envision the ads in their
re-election campaigns: ``My opponent sided with the drug dealers and
against the police officers of our fair state.'')

The only way to get the politicians to undo what they have done is to build
public pressure to stop this outrageous practice. Take pen in hand . . .

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski