NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/8327

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-11 | 5.8 KB

Xref: sparky misc.activism.progressive:8327 misc.headlines:7007
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
From: [e-mail] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: FEDERAL SEIZURE LAWS: MAKING CRIME PAY
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:15:25 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 101

FEDERAL SEIZURE LAWS MAKING CRIME PAY

Since the mid - 1980s it has become common practice, for law
enforcement agencies to seize property believed to be used or purchased
by suspected drug dealers or users.  Federal and state asset forfeiture
laws have generated millions of dollars in seized drug cash -- plus
booty such as cars, homes, planes and boats -- which have been turned
over to local law enforcement agencies.  As a result, the laws,
perversely, have made police departments financially dependent on the
drug dealing they are supposed to curtail.  Lt.  Michael Post, who heads
the Glendale (California) Police Department's narcotics unit says that
he has seen evidence of other police departments " under pressure to be
revenue producers,' ' to the point where they use shortcuts to seize
drug cash but do not follow up on their investigations in an effort to
arrest the dealers.  And while most officials deny it, the seizure laws
certainly can cloud the judgment of local police, leading them to
investigate suspects based on their assets rather than their threat to
the community.

Since Congress authorized the return of drug assets to local law
enforcement agencies in 1984, the program has come under fire from more
than one federal agency.  In a report issued last June, the U.S.
General Accounting Office criticized both U.S.  Customs and the Justice
Department for inadequate management of the program.  Three months
later, the Justice Department's inspector general also complained about
the program's management.

Perhaps more disturbing is that property may be seized without legal
concern as to the guilt of the owner, without due process of law, and
without any more evidence than "we suspect him/her of drug activity.  "
This tactic of seizing property was developed to discourage high-stakes,
high-profile drug dealers from gorging themselves on drug-profits
through extravagant living.  It is not surprising, however, that this
newfound strategy has been subverted by enforcement groups hungry for
the spoils of the drug war.

In one such case, a West-Texas sheriff has been using the seizure laws
to develop an "extrajurisdictional" strike force.  According to the
Texas Observer, Midland County Sheriff Gary Painter is coordinating a
group of drug mercenaries.  The group tracks down and stings suspected
drug dealers outside county lines, then brings the spoils back into
Midland County, and reaps the profits.  The most troubling question,
however, is the legality of "paramilitary" deputies sweeping across
the countryside, seizing property without concern for the due process
rights of suspects.  Apparently as long as these activities are
profitable for groups like Painter's, "freelance" deputies will be
encouraged to pillage at will.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  ERIK CUMMINS)

SOURCE:THE TEXAS OBSERVER 307 West 7th St., Austin, TX 78701

DATE:  10/18/91

TITLE:  "Have Badge, Will Travel"

AUTHORS:  David Armstrong and Nick Johnson

SOURCE:LOS ANGELES TIMES Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 9005:3

DATE:  4/16/91

TITLE:  "Seized Assets Underwrite the War on Drugs"

AUTHOR:Ronald L. Soble

COMMENTS:  Investigative author David Armstrong notes that "Law
enforcement officers are generally portrayed as dedicated civil servants
out to serve, protect and defend their communities.  Forfeiture laws
established as part of the 'War on Drugs,' however, have provided an
almost irresistible incentive for law enforcement agencies to forsake
traditional duties in favor of more sensational operations that could
enrich their departments.  A more thorough examination of this phe-
nomenon by the mainstream media could help communities to recognize and
combat the dangers inherent in this situation.''  Armstrong adds that
while law enforcement agencies benefit from the limited coverage given
this issue, "The big losers, of course, are the taxpayers, who are not
only deprived of the full services of their law enforcement agencies,
but may also fall victim to a 'War on Drugs' run amok.''

Los Angeles Times reporter Ronald Soble, who said he saw very little
coverage of the federal and state forfeiture programs, provides a
different insight into the issue from David Armstrong.  "The subject
should have a major public impact to the extent that it demonstrates
that individuals dealing in drugs stand to lose everything of value that
they own.  Property, cars, jewelry -- all of this is subject to
confiscation.  Losing all of one's possessions is a daunting
proposition.  Furthermore, it demonstrates that the government has a
financing mechanism in place that will continue to underwrite the war on
drugs for the foreseeable future.

"Undoubtedly the major drug cartels would benefit from lack of coverage.
The cartels need the middle men for distribution.  If the distributors
feel they can deal in cocaine and heroin without fear of government
intervention, Washington and the state will make no progress.  But if
there is wide media coverage of a well-financed anti-drug campaign, it
could have an intimidating impact on the distributors in this country.
The dealers need to know -- through the media -- that not only will they
face jail time, but that their possessions will be confiscated.  Such
stories generate public confidence in the war on drugs."