cannabisnews.com: Drug War Kills Rights 





Drug War Kills Rights 
Posted by FoM on August 13, 2001 at 07:42:32 PT
Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Staff
Source: Salt Lake Tribune
If civil liberties could somehow be classified as illegal narcotics, America's drug warriors could finally claim a significant victory in reducing supply. Americans' rights are increasingly being trampled in this annual $35 billion campaign, yet the drugs are as available as ever.   One of the more egregious assaults on the Constitution is the trend of states seizing property of people it suspects of being in the drug business. No solid evidence of a drug deal is necessary for cops to take what's yours under the Utah Controlled Substances Act, as well as other state and federal laws. 
The state is sometimes required to return property later if it can't prove some link to a crime, but nothing more than a hunch often motivates the initial confiscation.   Hank D. Lachman knows all about Utah's law and its overzealous use by some law enforcers. He was driving from Denver to Los Angeles in December 1999 when he was pulled over for speeding in Grand County. A Utah Highway Patrol trooper searched his trunk without permission, then confiscated a gift-wrapped package despite having no evidence that the box was anything other than what Lachman said it was: a Christmas gift.   Lachman was not charged with anything. He drove off with a warning ticket while the trooper took the package back to the station. The package was opened again without permission or a search warrant and observers' eyes grew wide and misty at the sight of $73,000 in cash. Dogs later sniffed a trace of narcotics residue on the wrapping paper (which conceivably could have come from the trunk of the trooper's own car), so authorities had the grounds they were looking for to keep the cash.   The main trouble with the state's case, aside from the Fourth Amendment problems surrounding the illegal search, was that no crime was ever linked to the money. No drug deal was traced to Lachman, no blocks of cocaine were found in his trunk. All authorities had to go on was that Lachman was transporting an unusually large amount of legal tender, which so far is no crime in America. Yet the Grand County prosecutor and Utah Attorney General's Office fought to keep his money, and 7th District Judge Lyle Anderson decided that they could.   The Utah Supreme Court reversed Anderson's ruling Tuesday, but one wise decision doesn't mean civil liberties are alive and well in Utah. The fact that police, prosecutors and a lower-court judge all were hellbent on violating Lachman's rights based on a hunch shows just how far in the wrong direction the drug war has dragged Utah's justice system.   Source: Salt Lake Tribune (UT)Published: August 13, 2001 Copyright: 2001 The Salt Lake TribuneContact: letters sltrib.comWebsite: http://www.sltrib.com/Related Articles:Seizures By Police Help Fund Drug War http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10223.shtmlDrug Link Common in Forfeiture Cases http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9238.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by hwy61rev on August 13, 2001 at 13:53:45 PT
other states
In some states the police do not have to prove a crime was ever committed. The person who's assets have been taken by the police must go to civil court where the rules are not the same as in criminal court. In civil court the burden of proof is on the victim, you have to prove your assets were not acquired through criminal activity. Usally a percentage of the seized assets must be posted before the court proceedings begin.   Also, some police departmants are fully funded by the assets they sieze. Which leads to the focus of the police not to " serve and protect " but on siezure of assets for their own benefit.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 13, 2001 at 13:13:23 PT:
Utah
Utah and Montana have a lot in common: conservative people who tend to be more religious than folks in other areas. In addition, both do not like government on their backs. That is the source of the current editorial insurrections. Nobody likes forfeiture except the (corrupt) beneficiaries. It is time to reconstruct the Constitution.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Sudaca on August 13, 2001 at 12:55:02 PT
surprised
as usual by the editorial line in the Salt Lake Tribune. What's going on in Utah? This is a nice article to quote on excesses of the asset forfeiture laws.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dan B on August 13, 2001 at 10:41:05 PT:
Perhaps A New Law is in Order
I want a law passed that says if a police officer seizes property without proof that said property is linked to a crime, and if that property cannot be conclusively linked to a crime by the person from whom the property was seized, and the matter goes to court, in addition to returning the property, the seizing officer and his supervisors must pay out of their salaries all of the victims's court costs and legal fees. This money would be deducted as a lump sum payment from the city, state or federal treasury (depending on the entity for whom the officer is working), then deducted in payments from the officer's salary in no greater amount than 20% of the officer's paycheck. The officer's supervisors--all the way up the chain of command--will have to ante up an equal percentage of their own salaries until the total amount is paid off (these court costs/legal fees can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars).Such a law should put a damper on property seizures,at least until they can figure out a way around it. I have found, however, that it is easier to pass a new law than to repeal an old worthless one. A law like this one could be called something like the Institutional Responsibility Act, as a title like that would lend it credibility with the voters (who could be against responsibility of government institutions?). Just an idea.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment