Pubdate: Tue, 18 Apr 2000
Source: Clarion-Ledger, The (MS)
Copyright: 2000 The Clarion-Ledger
Address: P.O. Box 40 Jackson, MS 39205-0400
Fax: (601) 961-7211
Feedback: http://www.clarionledger.com/about/letters.html
Website: http://www.clarionledger.com/
Author: Chris Thompson

DRUG, GAMBLING FORFEITURE FUNDS GIVEN TO STATE, LOCAL LAW OFFICIALS

Courts Hear Cases Arguing State Forfeiture Law Unconstitutional

TUPELO -- U.S. Attorney Buck Buchanan made several state and local law
officers smile Monday when he handed over more than $250,000 to nine
law enforcement agencies.

The money came from forfeiture of assets during recent drug and
gambling cases in North Mississippi. Buchanan said recent forfeitures
in the district have created more than $1.6 million for state and
federal law enforcement agencies.

Buchanan said many law enforcement agencies rely on forfeiture funds
to carry out drug and gambling investigations.

Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics Director Don Strange was handed checks
worth a total of $111,611.07.

"It feels good," Strange said. "This money is very important to the
overall drug program. It's great to take it away from the drug
traffickers."

But some have argued the state's forfeiture law could be
unconstitutional.

New Albany Chief of Police David Grisham, who was presented with a
check for $3,637 during the ceremony, recently lost a legal battle
against a Pontotoc man whose truck was seized after a drug arrest in
1995.

A federal judge recently awarded Ricky Galloway $27,428.10 in damages
for the loss of use of his truck. Drug charges against Galloway were
eventually dismissed, but the New Albany Police Department didn't
return his truck until after a state Supreme Court order.

U.S. District Court Judge J.T. Senter ruled this month that part of
the state's forfeiture law is unconstitutional, but the current
forfeiture law, as amended in 1996, is still in force.

Tupelo attorney Jim Waide, who represented Galloway, said he believes
both federal and state forfeiture statutes are unconstitutional
because they do not require officials to pursue forfeiture hearings in
a timely manner.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek Rea