Seizure of House Raises Concerns on Drug War, Civil Libertarians Say

When Terry Fields went to work Tuesday morning, he left behind his $3-million Malibu home where he and his family have lived for nearly three years. Twenty-four hours later, it belonged to the United States government.

Federal agents seized the property Tuesday while Fields was at work. He did not even hear about it until a reporter called to ask him for comment.

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court, government officials maintain the house was bought with drug money, which allowed them to seize it even though Fields, a Westside attorney, was not arrested and not under indictment.

That a person not charged with any crime can abruptly lose his home stirs intense concern in some legal circles. Defense lawyers and others argue that so-called “asset forfeiture” laws--which allow the government to take property that has been bought with drug crimes--may be effective, but can end up undermining civil liberties and punishing people who are innocent in the eyes of the law.

“My basic feeling is that that is a very dangerous thing for a country that calls itself a free society,” said E.E. (Bo) Edwards, a Nashville attorney who chairs the Forfeiture Abuse Task Force of the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “The basic concepts of due process in this country shouldn’t permit that.”

Stanley Greenberg, a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer, agreed.

“The whole forfeiture area to me is nothing but legalized theft by the government,” he said. “It scares the hell out of me.”

To varying degrees, that sentiment is widely echoed among defense attorneys and other legal experts. But it is furiously disputed by federal agents and prosecutors.

“What we’re doing is depriving the drug dealers of the fruits . . . of the drug trade,” said Rich Cohen, an assistant U.S. attorney from Seattle involved in the seizure of Fields’ home Tuesday.

The government maintains that Fields performed a variety of services for one of the biggest marijuana smuggling organizations ever to set up shop on the West Coast. According to the complaint, Fields received the Malibu house from one of the organization’s ringleaders in exchange for his services.

But the government has not charged Fields, and some legal experts worry that a house can be taken before a person is charged.

“It runs counter to the presumption of innocence,” said Jerry Uelmen, dean of the Santa Clara University School of Law. “It ties up a defendant’s assets before there’s any determination of guilt or innocence.”

Drug Enforcement Administration agents say that tying up drug assets is exactly what they’re trying to do. Many agents, while stressing protections for the owners of seized property, add that the power to take it is one of the most important weapons in the uphill battle against narcotics.

To make a seizure, government agents must first convince a judge that there is probable cause the property was purchased with drug money or was used in committing a drug crime. If the judge agrees, agents can proceed with a seizure.

At that point, the government takes over the property, but the owner can still recover it. To complete the forfeiture, the government must win a civil trial, where it sues the property, not the owner, and must convince a jury that a “preponderance of the evidence” supports its position that the property is ill-gotten. In a criminal trial, the government must prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

If the government loses, the owner gets the property back. If it wins, the property is forfeited to the government for good.

If Fields wants to stay in his home until the case is resolved, he must begin making payments to the government and agree to keep the property in its current condition.

DEA Special Agent Ralph B. Lochridge, director of public information in the administration’s Los Angeles office, said the DEA has acquired more than $2 billion in seized assets since 1985. In eight of 10 cases, people whose property is seized by the DEA do not contest the government’s action, he said.

The money from the forfeited assets goes back into law enforcement, he said.

Defense lawyers say there is a danger to that as well. Funneling the money back into law enforcement gives agencies an incentive to go after valuable assets because it helps the agency to expand.