Confiscation Laws Destroy US Citizen Property Rights

America Was A Special Place

The Early American Men & Women Believed InFreedoms and Laws

What Happened to these ideas?

Punishing The Innocent

Post-Dispatch Commentary on OpEd Page
Sunday, March 31, 1996

By Rance Thomas

Supreme Court occurred a few weeks ago on the forfeiture of privateproperty. Not only was the decision itself disturbing but so was the rationalesupposedly justifying it.

The decision involved the seizure of the car of an innocent victim, TinaBennis of Michigan, because a crime was committed in it. Bennis' husband,John, was caught having sexual relations with a prostitute in the car ownedjointly by the Bennises. Tina Bennis was unaware that her husband was committingsuch a crime in their car. In a 5-to-4 decision, the U.S.

Supreme Court upheld the Michigan's court decision in the forfeiture ofthe car.

This decision and others relating to forfeiture of private property threatenour right to ownership of private property. It means the invasion of ourprivacy by the state and its agents. If this decision prevails, no one willbe safe from the actions of overzealous prosecutors and police. We mustnot allow the erosion of our civil or basic rights for any reason even inthe pursuit of a noble purpose. Everyone's rights must be protected, theinnocent as well as the guilty. If one person's rights are violated andwe stand by and do nothing, we condone and contribute to the violation.

"Come On, Mr. and Mrs. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Make My Day!"

If this decision is allowed to stand, there will be future abuses. For example,any property could be seized if a crime is committed in it or on it, regardlessof whether the owner was involved or aware of it.

The rationalization of the court's majority opinion is disturbing. ChiefJustice William H. Rehnquist stated that Mrs. Bennis' appeal "has considerableappeal" but there was no getting around the "long and unbrokenline" of precedent.

With this reasoning, we would still have slavery, police-beating confessionsand many other rights violations. Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth BaderGinsberg in their concurring opinions also wrote baffling opinions. Thomasreasoned that "the federal Constitution does not prohibit everythingthat is intensely undesirable." Ginsberg said the court was not supporting"an experiment to punish innocent third parties." If this decisiondoes not punish innocent third parties, what does? Further, if citizenscannot have a reasonable expectation that the U.S. Supreme Court will protecttheir rights from the excesses of the state and its agents, to whom canthey turn? Only Congress now has the opportunity to protect our rights.Several members of Congress have attempted to do this in recent months -so far without success.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan introduced a bill last year, but unfortunatelyit did not pass; nor was it reintroduced in the current Congress. This billwould have corrected many of the dubious practices around the nation byeliminating civil-asset forfeiture. In other words, it would have eliminatedforfeiture without a conviction.

In the current Congress, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., introduced HB 1916, the"Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act," which would address someof the concerns regarding current practices. This bill has been languishingin the Judiciary Committee apparently without sufficient supporters to haveit brought to the House floor. A spokesman for the committee said he "stillhas hopes for it during this session." However, he did not sound enthusiasticor optimistic about its chances of passing.

Although Hyde's bill could shift the burden of proof from the individualto the government in forfeiture decisions, it does not go far enough toprotect our rights. The bill, however, would establish the right to counselin proceedings related to claims of seized property. It would establishthe right for a claimant to gain "immediate release of seized propertyfor substantial hardship" reasons. It would also eliminate the seizureof property in controlled-substance cases when a crime was committed "eitherwithout the knowledge of the owner or without" the owner's consent.

Why aren't members of Congress clamoring to support this and similar billsto protect our rights? Could it be that they are concerned about being labeled"soft on crime"? It seems that the only way our rights can beassured is for Congress to enact legislation that would ensure protection.We must be protected from the zeal of those who, although well-intentioned,would take away our property.

Visit AmericanCivil Rights Review. A Fabulous Website."