Pubdate: Mon, 29 May 2000
Source: Kansas City Star (MO)
Copyright: 2000 The Kansas City Star
Contact:  1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108
Feedback: http://www.kansascity.com/Discussion/
Website: http://www.kcstar.com/
Author: Kurt Hoffman

IMPROPER FORFEITURES

As I read your series "Protect and Collect" (5/21-22, A-1), I was
struck by one apparently obvious solution which wasn't specifically
mentioned but seemed almost too easy.

Since all these local and state law enforcement officials work under
the direct or indirect supervision of local and/or state elected
officials, why can't these elected officials simply direct their
subordinate law enforcement managers to stop the improper forfeitures
of seized funds to federal agencies?

Then when the law enforcement managers or their subordinates contrive
to do it anyway (regardless of the subterfuge), fire them and replace
them with law enforcement managers who will uphold their oath of office.

This should be no different than the philosophy of civilian control of
the military in this country.

If President Truman could fire Gen. Douglas MacArthur, surely a
governor could fire a highway patrol superintendent or director of
state police for disobedience of a direct order and failure to uphold
his oath of office.

Why do we need more laws to complicate things? Simply use the ones we
have.

Kurt Hoffman,
Gardner
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek Rea