Drugs and Civil Rights

JUSTICE has been well-served by a Dec. 13 United States Supreme Court decision that curbs the power of federal agents to seize property of people suspected of possessing or selling illegal drugs.

But the closeness of the 5-to-4 decision indicates both reluctance to weaken an anticrime measure that has been at least somewhat successful, and the acknowledgment that seizure by law enforcement agencies of assets even suspected to be contraband may have been carried out in some instances with too little regard for basic civil liberties. This was documented in a five-part Monitor series (Sept. 28 - Oct. 25).

Last February the High Court rejected a US Department of Justice policy of seizing the property of people who are ``innocent owners'' of illegal substances. In June it upheld the constitutional right of individuals to challenge some penalties for minor drug crimes as excessive. The Dec. 13 ruling guarantees the right of owners to protest seizure in court before their property is confiscated. It also clarifies the responsibilities of those who have the onerous task of trying to stem illegal drug trafficking. The time the process takes for those affected by asset seizures can in itself amount to punishment prior to the establishment that a crime has been committed.

Such was the ironic situation in the case just decided. In the decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a slim court majority ruled that the government deprived convicted drug dealer James D. Good of his right to due process of law when it took possession of his house in Hawaii while he was away. He was not apprised of the seizure. In fact, Mr. Good's house was seized four years after he had been convicted of drug possession, had paid a fine, and had served a year in prison. Now he will appeal.

In another forfeiture case a California couple took back a $160,000 mortgage on the $340,000 house they had sold. When the buyers were indicted under a federal racketeering law, the government seized the house. One federal district court denied government liability, but another ruled that the couple should be compensated under the Fifth Amendment prohibition of taking private property without ``just compensation.''

The latest Supreme Court ruling does not come near to settling all the individual-rights questions spawned in drug cases, but it does move toward the establishment of clearer, more equitable drug-control laws.

About these ads
Sponsored Content by LockerDome

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Save for later

Save
Cancel

Saved ( of items)

This item has been saved to read later from any device.
Access saved items through your user name at the top of the page.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You reached the limit of 20 saved items.
Please visit following link to manage you saved items.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You have already saved this item.

View Saved Items

OK