Pubdate: Tue, 13 Aug 2013
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2013 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.utsandiego.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386
Note: Seldom prints LTEs from outside it's circulation area.
Author: Steven Greenhut

FORFEITURE LAWS TURN PUBLIC OFFICIALS INTO PROFITEERS

The federal agents who cracked down on the illegal distribution of 
alcoholic beverages traditionally were called "revenuers." I always 
liked the simple honesty of the term, given that the main goal of the 
revenuers was, as the name implied, to track down moonshining 
scofflaws who didn't pay their taxes.

Federal agents long-ago shed that title, but sometimes it seems as if 
federal law is more about collecting revenues than anything more ennobling.

At issue are civil-forfeiture laws, which allow officials to seize 
property that may have been used in a crime even if the owner has not 
been convicted or even charged with anything. The lure of revenues, 
some say, has distorted police priorities as money-hungry agencies 
think more about grabbing property than they do about fairly applying 
the law. An ongoing case in Southern California illustrates the problem.

In 2003, Tony Jalali and his wife, Morgan, purchased a small office 
building in Anaheim. They paid it off and have managed it as an 
income property that would fund their retirement. The couple rented 
offices to an insurance agent, a dental practice, an auto wholesaler 
and, to the chagrin of Anaheim officials, to two clinics that 
dispensed medical marijuana.

Upset at the proliferation of such clinics in their city, Anaheim 
officials called in the feds for help in stamping them out. Instead 
of accusing the couple of breaking the law, the federal government 
filed a forfeiture case against the couple's property (United States 
of America vs. Real Property Located at 2601 W. Ball Road) claiming 
that a building valued at around $1.5 million is now rightly the 
government's because illegal activity allegedly took place on its 
premises after an undercover officer purchased $37 in marijuana from 
one of the dispensaries. The Jalalis say they were never given any 
other notice that having such tenants was inappropriate.

After receiving the notice last year, the couple evicted the one 
remaining dispensary. The Jalalis were the landlords. They had no 
role in operating the dispensaries.

And they had no reason to think that they were renting to anyone 
doing anything illegal, even though they knew the kind of business 
their tenants were operating.

A 1996 statewide initiative, Proposition 215, decriminalized the use 
of marijuana for those with a doctor's prescription, and such clinics 
were common. Mr. Jalali "read in popular news accounts statements by 
the federal government to the effect that federal authorities would 
not prosecute cases concerning medical marijuana where state law had 
made the use and sale of medical marijuana legal," according to his 
court filing. Unfortunately for the couple, the Obama administration 
started to take a much harder line on dispensaries soon after they 
started renting to them.

Ironically, the city-operated Anaheim Convention Center has for years 
been host to the world's largest marijuana show, the Kush Expo, the 
couple explained, so city officials had no problem with profiting 
from the marijuana industry. Despite the hypocrisy, officials are 
still trying to take the property.

The case highlights the dangers of marrying policing and profit. "The 
profit incentive is so incredibly dangerous," said Scott Bullock, 
legal counsel for the libertarian-oriented Institute for Justice, 
which is representing the Jalalis. He told me that officials "set 
aside policy goals and go after the money," especially in tough 
budgetary times.

The case also illustrates the inherent problems when a nation's laws 
are so contradictory and confusing that well-meaning people can't 
easily follow them.

One can debate medical-marijuana law. It's an unsettled matter that 
is winding its way through the courts. Even the federal prosecutor 
handling the case admitted as much in a December hearing explaining 
how his office got involved: "Our cities are being overrun with this 
issue. They (Anaheim officials) can't really decide what the state 
law is and how it's going to apply. So, U.S. government, can you step 
in and help us out?"

But in going to the feds, city officials ignored California's 
crystal-clear civil-forfeiture law, which only allows cities to seek 
the forfeiture of property if it is tied to a criminal conviction. 
Anaheim didn't seek clarity from the federal government. It sought a 
federal end-run that applies a looser standard and allows the city to 
keep 80 percent of the proceeds. This was about profits, not legal clarity.

Fair-minded officials would try to sort through the law and give its 
citizens a reasonable chance to comply with it. Instead city and 
federal officials saw the confusion as a chance to backfill their 
budgets. Perhaps the word "revenuers" isn't strong enough to apply to 
those who would use government power to take away the property of 
law-abiding citizens.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom