Ruling on Seizure Laws

Re “Wide Seizure Laws OKd by High Court,” March 5:

The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, ruled that the seizure of property as it relates to the use of the property in the commission of a crime was a tradition that should be upheld. Upheld whether or not the rightful owner of the property was involved or had any knowledge of the crime in which the property was used.

Exactly what tradition are the justices upholding? The tradition of ignoring the Constitution? The tradition of the ends justifying the means?

Rulings like these give the police a sense of judicial authority in the field that is most dangerous. Principles like probable cause, innocent until proven guilty and basic constitutional rights are much more important to protect than the need of the police to close cases.

This ruling is an indication of fear and panic that is not well-founded. It is an unintelligent ruling that has the effect of scaring people and sending the marginally paranoid into the Idaho hills in battle fatigues practicing war games.

Speak out, elected officials; walls at the borders and loss of our individual rights not only ignore the great traditions that built this country, but foment the fear and mistrust that are the causes of our greatest problems.

VINCENT D. STARACE

Palm Springs

* As a liberal, I was disappointed at first by Bennis vs. Michigan, the recent Supreme Court decision holding that the government may confiscate property “to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration,” even when the owner is innocent of any wrongdoing.

But on further reflection, the court’s decision may not be such a bad idea. Think of the possibilities: We could confiscate factories that pollute, businesses that exploit undocumented workers, slum apartments, uninsured cars, guns. This court has gone so far to the right, it’s left.

RAJEEV M. TALWANI

Los Angeles