Bradbury’s Courage

The most recent decision of the U. S. Supreme Court, which imposes additional restraints on the abuse of civil asset-forfeiture laws, and the responsible position asserted by Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury, serve as a reminder of (state) Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren’s politically motivated criticisms of our district attorney’s conclusions regarding the tragedy of Donald Scott’s death.

Mr. Lungren, eminently unqualified for the position he holds inasmuch as he has never prosecuted a criminal case, campaigned for expansion of the civil asset-forfeiture laws in early 1993, despite growing public concerns about repeated abuses by law enforcement officers. Mr. Lungren campaigned actively for a bill introduced by (state) Sen. Ken Maddy, which would have made it easier for the government to seize and forfeit assets of innocent persons.

The Donald Scott fiasco was the final nail in the Lungren-Maddy legislation’s coffin. As a result, the bill failed and, according to an opinion of the legislative counsel, no state civil assets-forfeiture law (will exist) in California effective Jan. 1.

Mr. Lungren is simply a bitter loser whose embarrassment is reflected in his criticism of the district attorney’s investigation. There was absolutely nothing for Mr. Bradbury to gain politically from his courageous conclusions about the motivation of those law enforcement officers who were involved in the Scott Ranch invasion, and he has demonstrated true leadership in his support of civil asset-forfeiture law reform.

GEORGE C. ESKIN

Ventura