High Court Curbs Drug Case Forfeitures : Law: The justices rule that an owner deserves a hearing before a home or business can be taken. The decision adds to recent limits on such seizures.

The Supreme Court moved once again Monday to rein in the government’s power to seize property in drug cases, ruling that owners are entitled to a full hearing before their homes or businesses can be taken away.

The 5-4 ruling marks the third time in a year that the justices have put new limits on drug forfeiture laws.

Some legal experts said that they see the latest decision as evidence that even the conservative-leaning high court has grown skeptical of the government’s War on Drugs, or at least has become aware of its possible excesses.

In 1984, eager to deal a crushing blow to drug dealers, Congress said that any property that has been “used in any manner . . . to facilitate the commission” of a drug crime “shall be subject to forfeiture.”

Most states, including California, enacted similarly sweeping laws.

Under the laws, federal agents alone seized more than $2 billion worth of property in the last seven years, while California prosecutors brought in more than $130 million.

Often, houses, apartment buildings, airplanes, yachts or cars were seized as soon as a suspect was charged with a drug crime but before he or she was convicted.

Recently, however, a growing chorus of complaints has arisen from property owners who said that they were tied up in court trying to regain possession of a building or business that had been seized because someone else--a friend, relative or boarder--had violated the drug laws.

Responding to those complaints, the Supreme Court has now taken three steps to restrain the practice:

* In February, the court ruled that “innocent owners” are exempt from losing their property. The Justice Department had taken the position that houses, buildings and other property are tainted if they were once used or owned by a drug dealer, even if the current owner was unaware of that fact.

* In June, the court said that an owner has a constitutional right to challenge a seizure of his home or business as an “excessive” punishment for a minor drug crime. Before, the government had argued that property does not have constitutional rights, so its owner had no legal grounds for complaining.

* On Monday, the justices moved to ensure that owners can make their claims in court before their property is seized.

Until now, federal and state prosecutors have claimed the power to seize property before its owner is notified of the action. Typically, government lawyers make a brief appearance before a magistrate and obtain a warrant authorizing the seizure.

The ruling in the case (U.S. vs. Good Real Property, 92-1180) calls a halt to that one-sided procedure.

“The right to prior notice and a hearing is central to the Constitution’s command of due process,” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the court.

Only in “extraordinary situations” can the government seize the property first and give the owner a hearing later, he said. As an example, he cited a yacht. In that instance, prosecutors may have reason to move quickly because the boat could sail away.

But in the usual case of houses, apartment buildings and businesses, prosecutors have no such worry. “Because real property cannot abscond,” there is no justification for a “prior seizure” in advance of a hearing, Kennedy said.

The case before the court arose in 1989 when, without warning, federal agents in Hawaii seized a house and four acres of land belonging to James D. Good.

Four years earlier, local police had found 89 pounds of marijuana at his home, and he was convicted of violating state narcotics laws. He was fined $1,000 and sent to jail for a year.

He challenged the sudden federal seizure of his property as unconstitutional and won rulings in his favor from a U.S. district judge and the U.S. court of appeals in California.

Kennedy’s opinion affirming that decision was joined by Justices Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Speaking for the dissenters, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called the decision “ill-considered and disruptive.”

It could call into question the government’s seizure of property in tax cases, he said.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas voted with Rehnquist.

In reaction, both prosecutors and defense lawyers agreed that nothing in the ruling prevents the government from seizing most, if not all, of the property of a true drug dealer, including someone like James Good.

“In most cases, this will not make a difference,” said Seattle attorney Richard J. Troberman, who filed a brief on behalf of the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “But it will have a significant impact in some cases.”

He cited an instance last week in which a Seattle businessman nearly had his restaurant shut down because prosecutors had obtained evidence that the owner’s brother had sold drugs there.

Under Monday’s ruling, the restaurant owner can challenge the proposed seizure in court before prosecutors close his business, Troberman said.

The ruling will not adversely affect anti-drug operations in Orange County, according to Orange County Sheriff’s Department Capt. Doug Storm, manager of the county’s Regional Narcotics Suppression Program. Storm said few property seizures currently take place involving Orange County drug dealers because the dealers now mostly use rented or leased facilities. “We mostly seize cash, not property,” Storm said.