LEGAL, BUT STILL WRONG

Anyone who has spent much time in Mexico is familiar with La Mordita,
the "little bite" of cash that police officers and other public
servants routinely extort from the people they are hired to serve. It
doesn't speak well of the Utah legal system that a Mexican national
was made to feel right at home during a recent visit here.

Breton Baranda was stopped last year by a Salt Lake County sheriff's
deputy, who promptly seized $2,340 that allegedly smelled of
marijuana. Baranda was not arrested and never charged with a crime,
and only after months of negotiations between his lawyer and the
county was he given half the money back.

The tawdry tale stands out even among the bulging annals of repugnant
asset-forfeiture cases. If the county had kept all of the money, it
could at least have claimed Baranda was guilty under the anorexic
burden of proof required in such cases. But by returning half, what
message has it sent? Is Baranda only half guilty?

If the county had evidence that Baranda had committed a crime (even
half a crime), it should have arrested him, tried him in court and
thrown him in jail. Since it lacked evidence, it should have promptly
returned his money with interest and an apology. But police and
prosecutors needn't trouble themselves with hard evidence under asset
forfeiture laws. A hunch will do.

Here's how it works. If a Utah Highway Patrol officer suspects that
the $2,000 you're taking to Las Vegas is linked to a drug crime, you
will lose the money on the spot. If a drug dog later sniffs a few
molecules of cocaine on the cash (highly possible since drug residue
is common on large bills) you will have to fight to get your money
back. If you are unwilling or unable to expend more resources in
court, then your best bet is to cut the kind of deal Baranda made with
prosecutors.

It is Third World justice at its worst, yet it is occurring with
disturbing regularity in this Land of the Free. District Attorney
David Yocom matter-of-factly explains that cases like Baranda's
"happen all the time."

That is no negative reflection on Yocom. The county's prosecutors and
sheriff's officers are just doing their jobs, which is to enforce
whatever asinine laws come down the hill from the Legislature. The
problem lies with a law that never should have been passed.

Utah's asset-forfeiture law allows immediate penalties based on mere
suspicions. Such laws should find no harbor in a justice system
founded on the principle that one is "innocent until proven guilty."
They are a license to steal, more representative of the justice system
to which Baranda -- about $1,100 poorer -- recently returned.

In his mind, Utah's is probably worse. At least in Mexico, officials
only take "a little bite."