ABUSE OF FORFEITURE LAWS GETTING OUT OF HAND

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, 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 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.

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. From 1985 to 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 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,
the liberal Democrat, and Rep. Bob Barr, the conservative Republican, both
support reform.

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.

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 ...

(c) 1998, Creators Syndicate Inc.