GOVERNMENT'S GRABBY HAND

AS Hosep Bajakajian and his family were waiting at the Los Angeles airport
to fly out of the country, Customs Service dogs sniffed currency in their
checked luggage.

Federal law requires those leaving the country with more than $10,000 in
currency to declare it. Agents asked the Bajakajians how much they had.
Bajakajian said he had $8,000 and his wife had $7,000. Searches of their
luggage and carry-on bags found $357,144.

The government charged Bajakajian with failure to declare the currency, and
he was found guilty. It also sought to seize all the money, under asset
forfeiture laws.

No, too much, said the trial judge, ordering Bajakajian to forfeit $15,000
and pay a $5,000 fine. Agreed, said the appeals court. Also agreed, said
the U.S. Supreme Court in a precedent-setting decision this week that easily
passes the common sense justice test.

The Supreme Court ruled that the forfeiture of $357,144 would violate the
U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Amendment, better known for prohibiting cruel
and unusual punishment, also prohibits ``excessive fines.'' Oddly, in the
more than 200 years of the Constitution's existence, the Bajakajian case was
the first one in which the court declared a fine to be excessive.

It did so with a bare 5-4 majority in which there was an unusual grouping of
justices. Clarence Thomas wrote the decision, joined by four liberal
justices. What they had in common is a suspicion of state power.

The result is a welcome check on asset forfeiture laws, which are too often
an invitation for law enforcement agencies to help themselves to goodies
that have some connection, however tangential, with a crime.

The currency declaration law is designed to hinder money launderers, drug
traffickers and tax evaders. Asset forfeiture laws generally are intended to
prevent criminals from keeping the profits of criminal activity, whether
cash or cars, boats and houses. Or, asset forfeiture can apply to goods that
have been smuggled into the country to evade tariffs.

In Bajakajian's case, the trial judge found that he had legally earned the
money and was taking it to his relatives overseas to repay them. It is legal
to take money out of the country as long as it is declared. Bajakajian's
only crime was lying about how much money he was taking. The only potential
harm to the government was not learning that money was being carried out of
the country.

For this, the fine cannot be $357,144, the Supreme Court said. The
government will have to curb its appetite for seizing stuff.

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett