From: [C reuters] at [clari.net] (Reuters)
Newsgroups: clari.usa.top,clari.usa.gov,clari.usa
Subject: High Court OKs Property Seizures in Drug Cases
Organization: Copyright 1996 by Reuters
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:20:36 PDT

                                         
         WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The Supreme Court Monday reaffirmed  
the government's power to prosecute drug defendants on criminal 
charges while also seizing their property, rejecting claims this 
amounted to double jeopardy. 
         By an 8-1 vote, the justices said two appeals courts had  
erred in barring simultaneous use of civil forfeitures and 
prosecutions on grounds such action violated a constitutional 
ban against punishing someone twice for the same crime. 
         Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority that  
forfeitures represent neither punishment nor criminal action and 
thus fall outside double jeopardy protections. 
         ``Since the earliest years of this nation, Congress has  
authorized the government to seek parallel ... civil forfeiture 
actions and criminal prosecutions based on the same underlying 
events,'' Rehnquist said. 
         The ruling was a major victory for the Justice Department,  
which in recent years has obtained hundreds of millions of 
dollars under forfeiture laws in the fight against drugs. 
         It marked the second time this year the conservative-led  
Supreme Court has sided with the government in upholding broad 
seizure powers. 
         In March, it ruled 5-to-4 in a Michigan case that local  
authorities could confiscate a couple's car after the man had 
had sex in it with a prostitute, even though his wife had no 
knowledge of his illegal activity. 
         Civil forfeitures have an easier standard than criminal  
seizures, which require the government to prove beyond a 
reasonable doubt that the property had been used to commit the 
crime or bought with the proceeds. 
         Critics have charged that the government's forfeiture  
measures have at times been abused and that civil seizures, plus 
criminal penalties amount to excessive punishment. 
         But Rehnquist disagreed, saying civil forfeitures  
historically have not been regarded as punishment. He said the 
laws at issue may serve as a deterrence, but this could serve 
civil as well as criminal purposes. 
         One case involved two Los Angeles men, James Wren and  
Charles Arlt, who were convicted of manufacturing 
methamphetamine and laundering money. 
         Five days after their 1991 indictment, federal prosecutors  
brought a civil forfeiture case seeking more than $400,000 in 
cash, silver bars, an airplane, a boat and other property. 
         The other case involved Guy Ursery, who was convicted in  
1993 for growing marijuana just beyond the boundary of his 
Michigan farm. In his house, police found marijuana seeds, stems 
and stalks and a growlight. 
         Before bringing criminal charges, prosecutors filed a civil  
complaint seeking forfeiture of his residence. But Ursery and 
his wife entered into a settlement and agreed to pay $13,250. 
         The lone dissenter in Monday's court vote, Justice John Paul  
Stevens, objected to the efforts to seize Ursery's house. He 
expressed concern ``that the court's treatment of our cases has 
cut deeply into a guarantee (against double jeopardy) deemed 
fundamental by the Founders.'' 
         In other criminal law rulings Monday, the court:  
         --said a defendant prosecuted in a single proceeding for  
multiple petty offenses does not have a right to a jury trial, 
even if the total possible prison term exceeds six months; 
         --and overturned a judge's ruling requiring Arizona to take  
a number of steps to improve its law libraries and offer legal 
assistance for inmates. It said the prisoners must show 
widespread actual injury, not just instances of harm.