From: [h--le--n] at [hprpcd.rose.hp.com] (Helen Nusbaum)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: The New Bounty Hunters
Date: 26 Jul 93 21:53:57 GMT


                             The New Bounty Hunters
                               By Steven Meinrath*


          Bounty hunters have never had a very good name.  And for a good
     reason. The idea of law enforcement being pursued for profit has,
     understandably, been something most Americans, including most law
     enforcement officials, have been extremely uncomfortable with... until
     now.  The new term for bounty hunting is asset forfeiture and the State
     Legislature is currently considering whether or not to continue, or
     indeed to expand, this State's asset forfeiture law.  Before we get too
     enthusiastic about claims that we can put major drug dealers out of
     business by seizing their million-dollar estates and Lear-jets, we need
     to give some serious thought to whether we want our law enforcement
     agencies motivated by their duty to protect and serve or by the need to
     finance their agency.

          The current asset forfeiture law in California will expire in
     1994.  That law allows law enforcement agencies to share in the spoils
     of items they seize from anyone they suspect of having used illegal
     means to acquire those assets.  The law allows them to keep, for their
     agency's own use, items such as fancy cars, or a portion of the
     proceeds from the sale of such items, which they have confiscated from
     citizens who may or may not have been convicted of committing any
     crime.

          That's right: to have your home, your car, indeed everything you
     own seized from you by your local police department for their own use,
     they do not have to so much as charge you with a crime, much less
     obtain a conviction.  As an attorney I have had the unfortunate task of
     explaining this new concept in law enforcement to many people who have
     had their property seized.  They universally react the same way: they
     tell me I must be mistaken.  This can not happen in America.  When they
     learn the truth about these statutes, they usually ask how the law
     could have gone this far.

          My most memorable experience with asset forfeitures occurred in
     San Diego where I worked as a deputy Federal Public Defender.  There I
     represented a young man in what was probably the largest, as well as
     the most ridiculous, asset forfeiture case is U.S. history to date.  My
     client was a young marine biologist on board a $200 million dollar
     research vessel owned by the world- famous Woods Hole Oceanographic
     Society.  U.S. Customs agents discovered a Sucrets box in this young
     man's state room on board ship.  In the Sucrets box they found one
     marijuana cigarette butt.  You guessed it.  They seized the boat.

          Customs never believed for a moment that this young scientist, who
     I met in a federal holding cell the next morning, was a drug smuggler.
     This outrageous abuse of governmental power was undoubtedly some one's
     idea of a good publicity stunt intended to show off the agency's policy
     of "zero tolerance" in the area of drug enforcement.  It backfired and
     made the agency a laughing stock.  I watched as David Brinkley joked
     about it on his Sunday morning news show but I did not think it was all
     that funny.  I still don't.

          In the few short years since then, asset forfeitures in California
     have become institutionalized.  In recent hearings before the Assembly
     Committee on Public Safety, one proponent of expanding such laws urged
     the Legislature to act quickly in doing so because local governments
     need to know whether they can count on these revenues in planning their
     upcoming budgets.  In other words, law enforcement agencies are now
     being funded with the understanding that they must make up part of
     their budgetary needs through seizing property from citizens.  No
     stronger incentive has ever existed for the police to abuse their
     power.

          Allowing police agencies to retain the spoils of their busts
     creates a serious conflict of interest between those agencies and the
     public they are sworn to protect.  At some point this will inevitably
     raise the public's suspicion that government law enforcement agencies
     are setting their priorities based on what will reap them the greatest
     reward and not necessarily on what will best serve the public interest.
     Suppression of violent crime does not usually lead to any large seizure
     of assets.  Therefore, in the future, that may get less attention from
     the police than looking for indoor marijuana gardens, which could
     result in a large property forfeiture.  While the public may feel
     controlling violent crime is more important that chasing pot growers,
     the police will have a vested interest in pursuing their own
     priorities.

          Our police officers are public servants, not bounty hunters.
     Providing them with financial incentives to enforce those crimes which
     will lead to large seizures of assets is not in the public interest or
     ultimately in the interest of effective law enforcement.  If you agree,
     please let your state legislator know how you feel.


       (*About the author: Steven Meinrath is an attorney in Sacramento.)