Pubdate: Tue, 18 Apr 2000
Source: Oakland Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2000 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
Contact:  66 Jack London Sq., Oakland, CA 94607
Feedback: http://www.newschoice.com/asp-bin/feedback.asp?PUID486
Website: http://www.newschoice.com/newspapers/alameda/tribune/
Author: Brenda Payton

BEAT FEET SHOULD GO WAY OF OTHER DRACONIAN DRUG LAWS

LAST WEEK, the U.S. House of Representatives took an important step in
restoring some of the rights sacrificed in the ill-conceived war on drugs.
Representatives unanimously passed a bill limiting the government's ability
to seize property of individuals who have not been convicted of criminal
activity. The bill, already approved by the Senate, is expected to be signed
by President Clinton.

Civil forfeiture laws have become a popular tool of law enforcement
agencies, allowing them to seize property allegedly used in drug dealing or
purchased with drug money.

Because the practice does not require a conviction, it has resulted in
astonishing abuses. The act does not directly affect Oakland's controversial
Beat Feet forfeiture ordinance. However, it illustrates how other lawmakers
are recognizing the excesses under these laws. It also provides a context
for the eviction of four elderly tenants by the Oakland Housing Authority.

The federal bill, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, was
actually sponsored by Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
and a conservative Republican.

Hyde's quote says it all: "When I read what was going on, I thought it was
more appropriate for the Soviet Union than the United States."

Lawmakers heard a litany of horror stories about innocent people who lost
their property in the drug dragnet. A man's restaurant was seized after his
brother was arrested for selling a small quantity of cocaine in the
restroom. Parents lost their homes because their children were discovered
growing marijuana.

The individuals who lost their property were not convicted of selling or
growing drugs. They weren't even accused of drug dealing. They didn't even
have to know the activities had occurred. Still their property was
confiscated. And often the value of what was seized was hugely
disproportionate to the alleged crime -- a house as penalty for a marijuana
plant, for example -- an apparent violation of the Eighth Amendment, which
protects against excessive penalties.

The act restores some basic protections to the process. For starters, if a
person wants to contest the seizure and can't afford an attorney, the
government must provide for one. It increases the government's level of
proof, requiring proof of a substantial connection with criminal activity by
a "preponderance of evidence." It also requires reimbursement of any damage
done to property that is returned.

Oakland's Beat Feet ordinance suffers from many of the flaws the act
addresses. For example, it does not provide legal counsel for people who
want to argue their innocence but can't afford an attorney. And more
generally, it violates the principle that you are innocent until proven
guilty. You can lose your property when only the accusation of a crime has
occurred. The city doesn't have to prove your guilt to take your car; you
have to prove your innocence to get it back.

In a recent Oakland case, a judge's initial ruling raises the question of
excessive penalties; in this case, a $5,000 truck was seized because the
owner allegedly attempted to buy what turned out to be fake marijuana.

The issue of excessive penalties applies in the cruel and absurd OHA
evictions of four elderly and long-term public housing residents. In one
case, the woman's son, who doesn't live in her home, was discovered with
cocaine several blocks from the premises; the grandsons of two tenants were
cited, one time each, for the alleged possession of a marijuana cigarette;
and a man's caretaker allegedly possessed crack on OHA grounds. In each
case, the tenants were uninvolved with and unaware of the behavior.

The evictions were recently upheld by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, but lawyers for the tenants are asking that a
larger panel of judges hear the case. You have to question OHA's rationale
in proceeding to evict elderly tenants on these flimsy charges.

Oakland is uncharacteristically backward in the instances of Beat Feet and
the OHA evictions. Let's hope the new federal law will help city and housing
authority officials recognize how seriously they have endangered basic
individual rights.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk