SPOILS OF (DRUG) WAR FORFEITURES PROVE TOO LUCRATIVE FOR POLICE

Not since Edward Teach first prowled the high seas in pursuit of merchant
ships as a "privateer" for the British crown has a war on commerce been so
profitable.

What separated him from today's drug warriors, though, is that Teach
eventually crossed the line into out-and-out piracy as the notorious outlaw
Blackbeard, ultimately to be hunted down and killed. The agencies that
prosecute America's war on drugs need fear no reprisal. They seize and
benefit from substantial loot - houses, boats, cars, planes, etc., along
with wads and wads of cash - with the law's full blessing.

And they don't even have to prove the guilt of the alleged drug dealers
whose ill-gotten gains have been impounded. Needless to say, no one who
hoisted the Jolly Roger over the Spanish Main ever had it so good.

In Colorado, two state lawmakers are introducing a measure to rein in this
forfeiture power when wielded by law officers in that state. The move
follows legislation by Congress a couple of years ago limiting federal
agents' ability to seize assets.

Forfeiture power, initiated on the hopeful premise it could undermine drug
traffickers by depriving them of their lucre, has become a cynical game on
the part of government. The ability to take possessions of alleged
wrongdoers - it doesn't even have to involve the drug trade; it could be
used against anyone presumed to be involved in any felonious activity - has
turned into not only an unjustifiable penalty but also a reliable, and
relied-upon, source of revenue for law enforcement.

One lawmaker says police have seized cars, cell phones, jewelry and guns
and then used them in subsequent undercover work - or sold the property and
used the proceeds for pizzas, parties and, in the case of one police
department, an aquarium.

The pending Colorado legislation would redirect the property and proceeds
from forfeitures toward services such as treatment programs and to innocent
co-owners of the seized property, such as family members. Indeed, there
have been cases around the country in which children were deprived of their
homes because dad was thought to be a dope peddler.

The reason authorities have been able to get away with it is that the
assets are disposed of under civil rather than criminal laws, meaning the
state has less to prove in court than it does in pressing criminal charges
against the suspects themselves.

That also means that even if the property's owner is tried and acquitted,
he doesn't necessarily recover his belongings because it's a separate legal
action. Often, the legal costs in fighting the civil case are prohibitive
and sometimes, by the time the criminal case is resolved, the property as
been auctioned off - with proceeds going to the local constabulary.

Accordingly, the legislation aims to shift the burden of proof for civil
forfeitures to the government and to raise the legal standard for seizures
prior to a conviction. It would require that, in most cases, a property
owner be convicted of a crime before any forfeiture. Texas and other states
should follow Colorado's lead and protect property from being seized in
cases where no crime has been proved.

Law enforcement agencies' resources should not derive from arrests that
didn't even result in a conviction. That, in effect, penalizes the
innocent. Let's not sully law enforcement's noble mission by reducing it to
thinly veiled piracy.