A DRACONIAN PROPOSAL

L.B.: Seizing vehicles for misdemeanors is blatantly unfair.

Let us state up front that we do not defend the solicitation of prostitutes
or the abuse of illegal drugs. But we take strong issue with law
enforcement tactics that violate civil rights, trample the U.S.
Constitution, and victimize innocent people in the name of fighting
misdemeanor offenses.

Long Beach, unfortunately, is headed in that very direction.

The City Council on Tuesday authorized the City Prosecutor`s Office to
draft an ordinance allowing the seizure of vehicles that are suspected of
having been used in connection with prostitution and drug-buying. And the
city plans to model its ordinance on one of the most draconian and
unsettling in the nation, Oakland`s.

Many will say that`s fine; if you break the law, you should be prepared to
pay the price. Somewhere along the way, the choice was made to engage in
criminal behavior.

However, with asset forfeiture laws, that`s not always the case.

Under the Oakland law, vehicles can be seized even if the owner has no
knowledge of the crime and no connection to it. The law has also been
applied when the owner wasn`t in the car, and when the suspect has later
been found innocent.

Cases have arisen where unsuspecting women have lost their cars because
their husbands or boyfriends use them to pick up prostitutes. If a relative
or friend borrows your car and buys drugs . totally unbeknown to you .
you`re out of luck. You, who had broken no law, would have to hire a lawyer
and fight in court to get your car back. You may or may not be successful.

Strangely, vehicles can also be seized without anyone being convicted or
arrested for the underlying crime. The vehicle is treated as a separate
entity, which leads to oddly titled court cases like "One Toyota Pick-up
Truck V. District of Columbia," which was filed in Washington, D.C. The
vehicle becomes a defendant in a separate civil case that may have no
connection to any criminal case.

One of the most disturbing aspects of Oakland`s vehicle seizure laws,
though, is that they disregard both the Fifth Amendment protection against
unreasonable seizure and the basic legal tenet of presumed innocence.

If a person is arrested, then later found innocent, the vehicle isn`t
returned: The innocent person must hire a lawyer at personal expense to
fight a civil lawsuit. And since civil cases usually move more quickly than
criminal cases, the vehicle may have already been sold. Public defenders
can`t be used, and those of limited income often have no recourse.

Asset forfeiture also raises logistical questions that are impossible to
solve fairly. For instance, what if a car is leased? Why should a car owner
be penalized more than someone who rents? And why should the owner of an
expensive car lose $50,000 when the owner of an old car loses $2,000 . for
the exact same crime?

Finally, there is the issue of just punishment: Without diminishing their
adverse affect on neighborhoods, prostitution and most drug- buying cases
are misdemeanors. Vehicle seizure laws can add felony-like punishment --
potentially tens of thousands of dollars and the loss of livelihood -- not
by the will of a judge, but by local government (which, not incidentally,
keeps the profits from car sales).

Asset forfeiture laws were started by the federal government in the 1980s
to target drug kingpins, under the correct idea that they shouldn`t be
allowed to keep the profits . houses, boats, cars, cash etc. . from their
crimes. When local governments started applying them to low-level crimes,
though, forfeiture laws drifted into highly questionable waters.

After the Oakland ordinance was upheld in 2000 by the California Supreme
Court, several local governments have followed Oakland`s lead, despite an
obvious conflict of interest: police departments shouldn`t profit from
criminal activity. In the meantime, the federal government has scaled back
its once-harsh forfeiture laws after evidence of rampant abuse surfaced.
The federal government can still seize property, but the criteria are
strict, and Congress enacted an "innocent owner" provision to protect those
who have no knowledge of the crime. California state law allows vehicle
seizures only in large drug cases.

If Long Beach wants to reduce prostitution and drug crimes, it should crack
down. If prostitutes, "johns" and drug dealers are causing problems in
certain neighborhoods, arrest them and get them off the streets. Simple as
that. Asset forfeiture would only have a marginal impact on curbing
prostitution and drug sales, and the costs would be too great: Fairness,
civil rights, the presumption of innocence, and constitutional protections,
among others.

There are better ways to combat crime. The City Council should not allow
vehicle forfeiture to become law in Long Beach.