RECALL OF SHERIFF UNNEEDED; FORFEITURE LAWS DESERVE A LOOK, THOUGH

Saginaw County's flamboyant Sheriff William L. Federspiel uses every
legal tool at his disposal in a crusade against crime.

His trouble lately is that some folks don't like those hammers
pounding on medical marijuana patients' doors or when private
property is wrenched away with forfeiture laws.

The people who are seeking the sheriff's recall from elected public
office could address their concerns more appropriately with an attack
on the laws that offend them.

Instead, they want to get rid of the law-and-order,
uniformed-every-day crusader who voters elected over a longtime
sheriff two years ago.

Subtle and low-key Federspiel is not. He's apt to jump out of the
Ford Mustang that he drives in order to help direct traffic at the
scene of a crash.

But it's what that Mustang represents that sticks in craw of some.

"Taken from a local drug dealer" is emblazoned on its sides. It was
seized under a state and federal forfeiture laws that allow lawmen to
confiscate any property they deem the ill-gotten gains of the illegal
drug trade.

Used for a quarter-century, those statutes got little attention until
Federspiel began parading around in that hotrod, part of an education
effort, the sheriff says.

Doesn't the U.S. Constitution guard against unreasonable searches and
seizures? People began to talk.

And then Federspiel's department, acting on a federal search warrant,
busted Edwyn W. Boyke Jr. on suspicion he trafficked in marijuana.
Deputies trashed his basement marijuana growing operation and drove
away with all sorts of stuff, including a couple of lawnmowers, a TV and a car.

Boyke, though, is a registered medical marijuana patient. He was
accused of having a few more seedlings than the 12 marijuana plants
the law allows.

That April raid is where Federspiel hit a speed bump of public
opinion. Voters approved the medical marijuana law by a landslide
almost two years ago. It's a very popular statute.

And here we have the sheriff's office jumping on a registered
marijuana patient and grower, destroying his growing gear and taking
his property under a law intended to hurt big-time drug dealers.

Technically, Federspiel and his department appear to have operated
within the law.

But it's the law that really offends, not necessarily the sheriff's use of it.

Boyke, for example, chose to bail out his gear and get it back for
$5,000 rather than fight in court to prove his property's innocence.

David J. Smith calls that scenario "extortionist" and "fishy." We can
see where he draws those opinions -- that forfeiture law and others
like it are a stain on the Bill of Rights.

It's Smith who has gotten petition language approved to attempt a
recall of Federspiel. The petition claims the sheriff violates state
law by not always using the Mustang for official business. It's a
charge that Federspiel disputes.

That's the official reason that's on petitions that Smith is asking
more than 21,000 people to sign before the end of July so the
election goes on the November ballots.

Overall, though, it's unease with the forfeiture laws, with the
sheriff's gung-ho drive against drug dealers -- and the haze of a
still largely undefined medical marijuana climate in the state --
that are behind this recall.

We don't see a problem with Federspiel's enthusiasm. It's what
attracted voters to his campaign for sheriff.

On the other points, most people's biggest concerns are with the
forfeiture laws. Federspiel doesn't write laws, he just enforces them
and uses the statutes that lawmakers approve.

Those who don't like what's in that tool box need to bring their
concerns to Lansing and Washington.

But it's ridiculous to force a sheriff from office for using the
tools that the people's elected representatives gave him and other
officers in the fight against illegal drugs and other crimes.

Voters will have their chance to grade Federspiel's job performance
in his next election, in 2012. That's when they can toss him out of
office, or give him a thumbs-up for another term.

A referendum by recall is rarely warranted. In Federspiel's case, it isn't.