A WIN FOR DUE PROCESS

THERE'S something unfair when the state confiscates a person's property
without a trial. In big cases involving money laundering or organized
crime, the tactic may be justified on grounds that the money or property
will disappear if authorities don't seize it. Nevertheless, the common
police tactic contradicts at least the spirit of due process and
presumption of innocence.

Even more questionable was New Jersey's practice of barring property owners
from appealing such seizures to juries. The state Supreme Court's decision
that people can take these cases to a jury is an important victory for
individual rights.

Prior to last week's ruling, people could appeal property seizures in civil
court -- but only to a judge. The case was brought by Lois McDermott, a
65-year-old widow whose son was using her car three years ago when he was
charged with selling heroin to a Monmouth County police officer. Ms.
McDermott says her son, who pleaded guilty, used the car without
permission.

In their decision, the justices referred to colonial days when ships off
New Jersey's coast could not be seized without a jury trial. "Automobile
owners are entitled to the same protection today," Justice Stewart Pollock
wrote. "The forfeiture of automobiles today, like that of sailing ships in
earlier times, should be subject to the general rule requiring trial by
jury."

State Attorney General Peter Verniero says the state Supreme Court's ruling
will logjam courts, divert law enforcement officials from investigations,
and hamper the war against drugs by removing the threat of swift
forfeiture.

That may be true. But convenience and efficient law enforcement cannot be
the driving factors in law. If they were, people merely suspected of crimes
could be sentenced without trials. Justice Pollock summed it up best when
writing: "Mere inconvenience cannot justify the denial of a constitutional
right."

Copyright 1998 Bergen Record Corp.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)