SEIZED PROPERTY AIDS POLICE COFFERS

DA Says Practice Will Continue Despite Ethical Objections Raised By Some

From sheets and pillowcases to partial interest in an off-Broadway play
to the $4 million in cash found by a San Antonio police officer last
week, law enforcement agencies are taking some of the profit from crime
and suspected criminal activity.

Over the past several years, millions of seized dollars have been handed
over to local law officers to help bankroll their fight against
criminals.

People suspected of criminal wrongdoing often have walked away from
seized goods and let court forfeiture proceedings go unchallenged --
even though they face no criminal charges.

District Attorney Steve Hilbig said that while some people may argue
it's wrong to go after cash and property when there is only a suspicion
of illegal activity, his office will continue to do it.

"In many cases there may never be sufficient evidence to charge somebody
(with criminal wrongdoing)," Hilbig said. "There is no such crime as
illegal possession of money. But if our common sense tells us it is
illegal money, we will go after it."

A prime example, Hilbig said, is the $4 million in cash San Antonio
Police Officer David Sczepanik came upon during a routine truck
inspection last week.

Police seized the money, but the driver, apparently unaware of his
cargo, was not charged with a crime. The $4 million has not been
claimed.

"Last time I checked, Frost Bank did not use 18-wheelers to transport
money, they use armored trucks," Hilbig said.

U.S. Attorney Bill Blagg said asset forfeiture laws give law enforcement
another tool to "take the profit out of otherwise profitable crime."

During the first six months of 1998, Hilbig's staff obtained $289,363 in
forfeitures. The U.S. attorney's office here had forfeitures of
$5,219,793 throughout the district from January through July.

Assistant U.S. Attorney David Rosado, in charge of asset forfeitures in
El Paso, said his office routinely sees cars, trucks and airplanes --
including a Lear Jet worth $1 million that once was the property of
Mexican drug kingpin Amado Carillo Fuentes.

Forfeiture cases are filed against cash and personal property believed
to be derived from illegal activity -- usually drug trafficking -- and
are separate from criminal actions taken against the property owner.

Most federal forfeitures are civil. While most have involved drug cases,
Rosado noted new federal laws have prompted forfeitures in cases
involving health care fraud, counterfeiting and immigration.

"The theory is that no matter what the crime, people should not be
allowed to profit from it," he said. "Some people contest forfeiture,
some do not."

Rosado said most forfeiture actions are not contested, though some civil
cases are.

"We have had people come in and say they were renting the house to their
nephew, for instance, and that they had no idea he was growing marijuana
in there," Rosado said. "If they can show that is the case, we don't
seize the property."

While the majority of the forfeiture cases involve cash and vehicles,
other items occasionally surface.

A few years ago, the state of Texas became the owner of eight pairs of
brand new shorts, still in their wrappers, after the owner failed to
claim them in court. The shorts -- size and color unspecified -- were
kept by the state along with $775 in cash, sheets, pillowcases and other
items because no one answered the lawsuit.

The items had been confiscated by police during a drug raid and were
later sold at auction.

Federal prosecutors in the Western District of Texas do both criminal
and civil forfeitures, and over the years have seized homes, ranches,
race horses, vehicles, boats, airplanes and jewelry.

"When I was in the Eastern District of Texas, the most unusual thing we
ever had forfeited was a part interest in an off-Broadway play," said
Darryl Fields, a U.S. attorney's office spokesman.

A marijuana trafficker had used drug proceeds to buy a stake in the
play, making it a seizable asset.

"We got royalty checks for about two years, as long as the play was
running," Fields said.

Assistant District Attorney Leslie Sachanowicz, who handles many
forfeiture cases in state court, could recall only one case in which the
owner of the money demanded a jury trial. A Rio Grande Valley man
claimed the money stashed in a hollowed-out phone book was a personal
loan from his friend "Gordo" in Florida.

The man's attorney, Arturo Cantu of McAllen, argued his client, who had
no criminal record, had done nothing wrong. The jury awarded the $7,900
in question to the state.

Cantu said most people do not challenge forfeiture proceedings because
it is "too expensive to fight."

The legal fees will run from $10,000 to $20,000 for a jury trial on a
forfeiture case, he said.

The forfeiture statute does not allow those fighting the action to
recover attorney's fees from the state if they prevail in court.

Cantu said he lowered his fee in the phone book case because he felt
what was done to his client was unjust.

Cantu added, "It's very hard to bring evidence you're not a drug
dealer."

In cases where there is a possibility that criminal activity may have
been involved, Cantu said, people may have the money to launch a legal
battle but hesitate for different reasons.

"They don't want to waive their Fifth Amendment right (against
self-incrimination)," he said.

Hilbig's office has a contract with most local law enforcement agencies
that gives his office a percentage of the forfeiture.

After the seized assets become state or federal property, the law
requires the forfeited funds be spent on law enforcement.

"We share our funds with the smaller suburban cities like Leon Valley
and Live Oak," Hilbig said.

Forfeiture money has been used to buy cameras for DWI patrols and
computers.

In the federal system, Fields said, 80 percent of the cash from federal
forfeitures must go back to local law enforcement, and 20 percent goes
into Justice Department coffers.

Saturday, Aug 15, 1998

Checked-by: willtoo