Pubdate: Fri, 07 Apr 2006
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 2006 The Seattle Times Company
Contact:  http://www.seattletimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/409
Author: Christine Clarridge
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

2 SUSPECTS KEEP FLASHY SMILES

In their quest to seize the ill-gotten gains of suspected drug
dealers, federal prosecutors have targeted cash, jewelry, cars and
even homes. You can now add gold-capped teeth to the list.

A defense expert and the attorneys for two men facing federal drug
charges in Tacoma are crying foul over efforts by federal prosecutors
and officials with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives to have the gold-capped teeth -- commonly called "grills" or
"grillz" -- removed from their clients' mouths.

"I've been doing this for over 30 years and I have never heard of
anything like this," said Richard Troberman, past president of the
Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and an expert on
forfeiture law. "It sounds like Nazi Germany when they were removing
the gold teeth from the bodies, but at least then they waited until
they were dead." According to court documents and attorneys involved
in the case, Flenard T. Neal Jr. and Donald Jamar Lewis -- who were
both charged in U.S. District Court with several counts of drug and
weapon violations in January -- on Tuesday were taken from the Federal
Detention Center in SeaTac to the U.S. Marshal's Office in Tacoma.
There they were told the government had a warrant to seize the grills
from their mouths and that they were being taken to a dentist in
Seattle for removal.

Both made hasty calls to their attorneys, but were loaded into a
vehicle and on their way to Seattle when their attorneys were able to
persude a judge to stop the seizure, according to Neal's federal
public defender, Miriam Schwartz. Grills, made popular by rappers such
as Nelly, are customized teeth caps that are typically made of
precious metals and jewels. The cost for a full set can run from
hundreds to thousands of dollars. Some styles of grills can be snapped
onto the teeth somewhat like an orthodontic retainer, while others are
permanently bonded to the teeth.

Neal and Lewis had permanently bonded grills, their attorneys said.
The attorneys for both men declined to describe their clients' grills.
Federal prosecutors, who presented the seizure warrant to a U.S.
District Court judge on March 29, said they did not know that the
grills were permanently bonded to the defendants' teeth.

"Asset forfeiture is a fairly routine procedure, and our attorneys
were under the impression that these snapped out like a retainer,"
said Emily Langlie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in
Seattle.

Langlie said that as soon as federal prosecutors understood that
removal of the grills could damage the defendants' teeth, they
abandoned the seizure attempt. Prosecutors often seize personal
jewelry and other items from defendants if they are considered
proceeds of a crime, such as drug dealing. Court documents show that a
permanent stay on the seizure was signed by Magistrate J. Kelley
Arnold on Tuesday.

Calls to Arnold and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives were not returned Thursday.

Schwartz and Zenon Olbertz, Lewis' defense attorney, worry what would
have happened if their clients had been unable to reach them before
the seizure. "It's shocking that this kind of action by the federal
government could be sought and accomplished in secret, without anyone
being notified," said Schwartz. "It reminds me of the secret
detentions" of suspected terrorists. Seizure warrants are typically
sealed to prevent defendants from trying to move or hide valuables and
evidence, according to Langlie and federal court clerks. They become
public documents when the return -- which records what is actually
seized -- is filed, according to the clerk's office. However, Schwartz
and Olbertz said they have never run into a forfeiture handled like
this one. They said they are interested to see, once the documents are
unsealed, what legal or evidentiary argument led the judge to sign the
warrant.

"This is especially egregious because these two had not been convicted
and are presumed to be innocent," added forfeiture expert Troberman,
who is not involved in the case. "What are they going to do next?
Start taking artificial limbs from amputees?"
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake