Court Curbs Power to Seize Property of Drug Dealers

The Supreme Court put new limits Monday on the government’s power to seize property as part of its war on drugs, ruling that the Constitution forbids prosecutors to seek forfeitures that go far beyond a reasonable punishment for drug dealing.

In the case before the court, prosecutors had seized a South Dakota man’s mobile home and auto-body repair shop after he was convicted of selling two grams of cocaine there.

Until Monday, such forfeitures were not considered a form of punishment against an individual, but rather a legal action against a piece of property.

Since the property had no legal rights, it could be easily seized, the reasoning went, if prosecutors could show it was tainted by illegal activity.

But in a 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the legal “fiction” that seizing a person’s property is not a punishment and ruled that forfeitures are limited by the 8th Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” and “excessive fines.”

While the court did not spell out a standard for what is excessive, it ordered judges to scrutinize seizures of property to make sure that they do not impose an unfairly high punishment for the crime committed.

In the past decade, forfeitures have become a lucrative source of revenue for police and prosecutors.

New anti-drug laws gave prosecutors the right to seize any property which had been used “in any manner” to manufacture, transport, sell or hide illegal drugs.

Once a person was convicted of a drug crime, authorities were then free to gain court orders to seize their cars, boats, planes, houses or any similar property.

Federal agents alone seized more than $2 billion worth of property in the last seven years. California has its own forfeiture statute, which has brought in more than $130 million since 1988.

But in recent years, a chorus of complaints has risen over the drug forfeitures, and the Supreme Court has now moved twice this year to rein in the power of prosecutors.

In February, the court ruled that “innocent owners” of property were exempted from seizures under the federal law.

Before that ruling, the Justice Department had taken the view that a building, boat or plane could be seized if it had been used for illegal drug activity, even if its owner was entirely unaware of the crime.

Monday’s decision limits seizures, even from those who knowingly committed drug crimes. Because it is a constitutional ruling, it also restrains both state and federal prosecutors.

“This decision will go a long way in protecting the rights of people who have been victimized by an overzealous asset forfeiture program,” said Rep. John Conyers Jr., (D-Mich.), who had held House hearings recently to highlight abuses of the law.

“The court will no longer permit seizures to be used as punishment.”

But the Justice Department issued a statement Monday afternoon that appeared to play down the decision’s effect.

Asserting that it has already “exercised restraint in enforcing civil forfeiture laws,” the department said “it does not expect the (ruling) to have any significant impact on the day-to-day operations of the forfeiture program.”

The case in question began in June, 1990, when a police informant in Sioux Falls, S.D., went to the auto-body shop owned by Richard Austin seeking to buy drugs.

According to the informant, Austin walked to his nearby mobile home and returned with two grams of cocaine.

Later, police returned with a search warrant and found $3,300 in cash and two small bags of cocaine and marijuana.

Austin pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seven years in prison. Prosecutors then seized his home and business because they were used as part of his illegal drug dealing.

A U.S. appeals court in St. Louis reluctantly upheld the seizure order last year. But Austin filed an appeal from prison, and in Austin vs. U.S., 92-6072, the high court overturned the forfeiture order on Monday.

But the government prevailed in a key forfeiture case involving obscene books and videotapes.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court said that the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and a free press does not limit the government’s power to seize an entire chain of bookstores and theaters because a jury found several of its books and tapes to be obscene.

Before Monday, the court had taken the view that all books or films were protected as free speech unless they were found individually to be obscene.

But in Alexander vs. U.S., 91-1526, the court upheld a forfeiture order which resulted in the seizure and destruction of more than 100,000 books and tapes from a Minneapolis chain on the grounds that a jury found seven items to be obscene.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called this “a permissible criminal punishment, not a prior restraint on speech.”

However, the court in a separate action threw out the forfeiture order under the principle set in Monday’s South Dakota drug case.

A trial judge must now consider whether such a massive seizure is an “excessive” punishment for the offense of selling several items of obscenity.

In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the court had undercut the traditional broad protection for free speech by putting bookstore owners on notice that they “risk the whole inventory and indeed the business itself” by carrying a few items that are questionable.

He was joined by Justices Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter.