ARUNDEL REVISES SEIZURE POLICY

Cars won't be confiscated in simple drug cases; `Zero tolerance' defended

Chief Larry W. Tolliver ordered Anne Arundel County Police yesterday to
stop seizing cars in simple drug possession cases, a rollback of his
popular and controversial "zero tolerance" for drug trafficking.

The move marked the first shift in a vigorous and highly publicized policy
that has evoked praise from residents tired of drug activity and criticism
from those who believe zero tolerance is overbearing and a threat to
constitutional protections of due process.

In a written directive issued in March 1997, Tolliver told officers to
seize vehicles if anyone inside had drugs or if drugs were found in the
vehicle, regardless of who owned the vehicle, or whether the owner knew of
the drugs.

In one case that same month, county police seized a Ford Mustang belonging
to a woman whose daughter was arrested for altering prescriptions for the
painkiller Percocet. The daughter was arrested while driving the car. The
State's Attorney Office took two weeks to return the car to the mother, who
had to pay a $250 fee.

The seizure policy -- plus added narcotics officers -- led to a dramatic
jump in the number of cars, trucks and other vehicles taken from people
arrested for crimes ranging from drug possession to distribution.

Since January of this year, the department has seized 772 vehicles, nearly
three times the number for the same period last year.

Nearly two months ago, however, the county attorney asked Tolliver to
review department policy based on two rulings by the Court of
SpecialAppeals on forfeiture cases in other counties. Supervisors have been
reviewing the policy and state law since then, and Tolliver said he agreed
to the change after meeting Monday with County Attorney Philip F. Scheibe
and Deputy County Attorney David A. Plymyer.

The chief downplayed the effect of the changes he ordered.

"This is not going to hamper what we're doing as far as zero tolerance,"
said Tolliver, who was named chief in January 1997. "If you're caught with
a marijuana cigarette, you're going to be arrested, and we will continue to
do that. We will not back off."

In his memo to all personnel yesterday, the chief said police should
continue to seize cars used to distribute drugs or that have been bought
with drug money.

"I expect that each officer will continue to ferret out those persons
involved in drug activity," he wrote.

Guidelines for seizures in other cases will be provided in a few days,
according to the memo.

Scheibe provided examples of how the seizure policy should now be applied.

In a case where a person is found with 1 ounce of marijuana, but has no
prior drug violations and is not arrested in a known drug trafficking area,
the car he or she is in probably should not be seized,

Scheibe said. However, when a person is caught with 5 ounces of marijuana,
thousands of dollars in cash and is in a known drug trafficking area, that
car would likely be seized, he said.

After seizing a car, police usually recommend that the county State's
Attorney office seek forfeiture of the car, meaning the owner would
permanently lose it. If the car is not recommended for forfeiture, owners
typically wait three to seven days to get the car back, according to
State's Attorney Frank R. Weathersbee.

In a January 1997 ruling the Court of Special Appeals reversed the
forfeiture of a car in a 1994 Dorchester County case in which the defendant
was driving his mother's BMW when police arrested him on an outstanding
warrant and found cocaine and marijuana in his pocket and more than $4,000
on him and in the car.

In a January 1998 ruling, the same court agreed with a Howard County
Circuit Court ruling that forfeiture was not warranted in a 1996 case in
which police found a crack pipe in a Corvette and crack and heroine in the
driver's pocket.

In both cases, the court said the cars were not being used to commit a
crime and, therefore, should not be forfeited.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)