Seizure Fever; J. Bovard

THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBER1Y Seizure Fever: The War on Property Rights by James Bovard M ass confiscation has become politi cally fashionable. Politicians and the courts have created an overwhelming pre sumption in favor of the government's right to seize control over private land, private homes, boats, and cars, and even the cash in people's wallets. While the dispute over property rights is often portrayed as merely an economic contest, the power of govern ment officials to seize private propertydi rectly subjugates citizens to the capricious will of those officials. Once upon a time, possession was nine tenths of the law. Nowadays, gossip is sometimes nine-tenths of possession. Thou sands of American citizens are being stripped of their property on the basis of rumors and unsubstantiated assertions made by the government's confidential in formants. Beginning in 1970, Congress enacted leg islation to permit government to seize prop erty of Mafia organizations and big-time drug smugglers. 1 In succeeding decades, other forfeiture laws were enacted, and federal agents can now seize private prop erty under more than 200 different statutes. 2 From 1985 to 1991, the number of federal seizures of property under asset forfeiture laws increased by 1500 percent-reaching a total of $644 million.3 State and local Mr. Bovard is the author ofShakedown (Viking, 1995)and Lost Rights: The Destruction of Amer ican Liberty (St. Martin's, 1994).

6 governments have also seized hundreds of millions of dollars of property in recent years. 4 According to Steven Kessler, aNew York lawyer who authored a three-volume 1993 study on federal and state forfeiture, "The use of forfeiture has probably in creased a hundredfold in the last ten years.,,5 Thousands of Americans have had their property confiscated thanks to the forfeiture laws. Unfortunately, the more forfeiture laws legislatures enacted, the less attention po lice seem to pay to major criminals. Repre sentative Henry Hyde of Illinois noted in June 1993 that 80 percent of the people whose property is seized by the federal government under drug laws are never for mally charged with any crime. 6 Represen tative John Conyers of Michigan declared at a June 1993 congressional hearing: "A law designed to give cops the right to con fiscate and keep the luxury possessions of major drug dealers mostly ensnares the modest homes, cars and hard-earned cash of ordinary, law-ab~ding people.,,7 Legalized Theft Willie Jones of Nashville was flying to Houston on February 27, 1991, to purchase plants for his landscaping business. Because Jones was black and paid cash for his plane ticket, the ticket clerk reported him to nearby Drug Enforcement Agency officers, who presumed Jones was a drug courier.

DEA officers at the Nashville airport ap proached Jones, checked his identification, and asked permission to search him. Al though Jones refused to grant permission, the officers searched him anyway and found $9,000 in cash. The DEA agents then an nounced that they were "detaining" the .money. Jones observed: "They said I was going to buy drugs with it, that their dog sniffed it and said it had drugs on it. " (A 1989 study found that 70 percent of all the cur rency in the United States had cocaine residue on it.)8Jones never saw the dog. The officers didn't arrest Jones, but they kept the money. When Jones asked the officers for a receipt for his money, they handed him a receipt for an "undetermined amount of U. S. currency." Jones objected and asked the officers to count the money out, but the officers refused, claiming that such an action would violate DEA policy. Federal judge Thomas Wiseman, in an April 1993 decision, concluded that "the officers' behavior at this point was casual and sarcastic . . . they believed that the seizure of the currency was all but a fait accompli . . . they cared little for Mr.

Jones's feelings of insecurity.' ,9 Judge Wiseman concluded that the DEA officials' testimony on the seizure was' 'misleading," "unconvincing," and "inconsistent" and ordered the money returned-after a two year legal battle. Jones observed: "I didn't know it was against the law for a 42-year-old black man to have money in his pocket. ,,10 A married couple in Ottsville, Pennsylva nia, had their $250,000 home confiscated after police found marijuana plants inside the house; the couple and their three chil dren were effectively evicted from their own home. District Attorney Gary Gambardella, who filed the motion to confiscate the home, observed: "People say that selling drugs is a victimless crime, but the children are the real losers here." 11 Asset forfeiture increases the power of local policemen over people they do not like. In Washington, D.C., police routinely stop black citizens and "confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry on the streets 7 and in parks-even when no drugs are found or charges filed.,,12 Ben Davis, a resident of Washington, complained, "I've got money in both pockets, but I don't know how much. The assumption is, if I can't tell you exactly how much I have, it must be from criminal enterprise." 13 Increasingly, the mere suspicion of a government official is sufficient proof to nullify all claims that a citizen legitimately owns his property. The Volusia County, Florida, sheriff's department set up a "for feiture trap" to stop motorists traveling Interstate 95 and seized an average of over $5,000 a day from motorists between 1989 and 1992-over $8 million dollars total. In three-quarters of the seizures, no criminal charges were filed. An investigation by the Orlando Sentinel revealed 90 percent of those seizure victims were black or Hispan ic. 14 When confronted with this statistic, Volusia County Sheriff Bob Vogel said, "What this data tells me is that the majority of money being transported for drug activity involves blacks and Hispanics."

People whose cash was seized by the deputies received scant due process of law; as the Sentinel noted, one deputy told two blacks from whom he had just confiscated $19,000: "You have the right to follow us back to the station and get a receipt. " Even citizens who provided proof that their money was honestly acquired (including a lottery winner's proof of his lottery receipts) were treated like drug dealers. Volusia County officials routinely offered "settle ments" to drivers whose cash they seized, offering to return a percentage of the seized cash if the drivers would sign a form prom ising not to sue. Asset forfeiture laws are turning some federal agents into the modern-day equiva lent of horse thieves. Ranchers are being victimized by seizures based on allegations of violations of environmental laws. On March 10, 1992, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state agents trespassed 15 miles onto Richard Smith's Texas ranch, accused him of poisoning eagles, and seized his pickup truck. The agents later tracked down Smith's 75-year-old father, W.B. Smith, and 8 THE FREEMAN • JANUARY 1996 seized his pickup truck-threatening to leave an old man who had had five heart bypass operations tenmiles out of town with no transportation. 15 The agents produced no evidence to support their accusation and returned the trucks nine months later with out filing charges. 16 W.B. Smith com plained: "The Fish and Wildlife Service is out of control, and the Endangered Species Act has given them the tools to destroy the ranching industry. ' ,17 Lawyer Nancy Hollander told the House Government Operations Committee in June 1993: "All too often, in my practice back in Albuquerque, I see cases where someone loses the family pick-up truck at the time of arrest for a non-money related, non-drug federal crime. These persons frequently give up the criminal case, even when the prosecution has little merit, to negotiate the release of a vehicle which provides their livelihood. ,,18 Confiscation based on mere suspicion is the essence of contemporary asset forfei ture. In Adair County, Missouri, local police seized Sheri and Matthew Farrell's 60-acre farm based on an unsubstantiated tip from a paid drug informant who claimed that Farrell had a vast fieldof marijuana and used tractors outfitted with special lights to har vest it at night. Police made no effort to investigate the allegations before seizing Farrell's farm. The case against Farrell and 34 other local defendants collapsed when the informant refused to testify in court first because he claimed he had laryngitis, and then because he claimed a total loss of memory. 19 Despite the collapse of the pros ecution's case, the police refused to return Farrell's farm. They had a change of heart after the Pittsburgh Press exposed the case, although they required that the Farrells sign an agreement promising not to sue before giving back the farm. The case cost the Farrells over $5,600 in legal fees.

DistortedLaw Enforcement Priorities Asset forfeiture distorts law enforcement priorities; instead of chasing violent criminals, some police target wealthy citizens. Early in the morning of October 2, 1992, a small army of 31 people from eight law enforcement agellcies smashed their way into 61-year-old Donald Scott's home on his 200-acre Trail's End Ranch in Malibu, Cal ifornia. The raiders were equipped with automatic weapons, flakjackets, and a bat tering ram.20 Scott's wife screamed when she saw the intruders, Scott came out of the bedroom with a pistol in his hands, and police gunned him down. After killingScott, the agents thoroughly searched his house and ranch but failed to find any illicit drugs. Ventura County district attorney Michael Bradbury investigated the raid and issued a report in 1993 that concluded that a "pri mary purpose of the raid was a land grab by the [Los Angeles County] Sheriff's Depart ment. ,,21 Bradbury revealed that at a brief ing before the raid took place, government agents were informed that the ranch had been appraised at $1.1 million and that "80 acres sold for $800,000in 1991 in the same area. ',22 The law officers at the briefing were told that if they discovered as few as "14 marijuana plants" on the ranch, the entire property could be seized. 23 Bradbury also concluded that a Los Angeles sheriff's dep uty had lied to obtain a search warrant and declared: "This search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant. This guy should not be dead. ,,24 Los Angeles officials claimed that a confidential informant told them that marijuana was being grown on Scott's ranch, but the informant denied ever making such a statement. 25 In Pittsburgh, federal prosecutors last year devastated Jane Ward after she had fully cooperated with them in testifying to help solve the murder of her husband, John Ward. Prosecutors decided that John Ward had been a drug dealer and that all of his previous income was drug-related.

They proceeded to confiscate almost all of the assets of the widow (who had her own legitimate business); federal officialsarrived with a truck at the Ward's home and carted off all the family's furniture. Prosecutors even sought to confiscate all the proceeds from Ward's life insurance; Jane Ward and SEIZURE FEVER: THE WAR ON PROPERTY RIGHTS 9 her three children were forced to go on welfare, according to Terrance Reed, Ms. Ward's lawyer and one of the nation's leading authorities on forfeiture law. Asset forfeiture property grabs are spark ing fights across the nation-even in states known for giving government a long leash, such as Maryland. In Frederick, Maryland, police seized a 1988 Toyota pickup truck from a local resident after he bought $40 worth of a drug placebo from an undercover cop at an open-air drug market. Under Maryland law, local police and prosecutors have effectively unlimited power to confis cate any vehicle they suspect was involved, or that the owner intended to be involved, in transporting drugs. Maryland police have confiscated thousands of autos and trucks in recent years, often based on mere accu sations.

After Maryland Delegate John Arnick proposed a law to reform the forfeiture procedure to shore up defendants' rights, state officialswent berserk. Harford County State's attorney Joseph Cassilly denounced Amick's proposal: "It's a crazy law. Abso lutely crazy .... It's just going to incon venience the hell out of everybody" by requiring police officialsto testify in court to explain why cars were confiscated.26 Frank Charles Meyer, an assistant state's attorney in Baltimore County, justified the existing law: "It hurts the bad guy, it benefits the good guy and it doesn't really cost. ,,27 Police sometimes "settle" the forfeiture cases by allowing the auto owners to buy back their car for half the car's value. Government by Gossip The Justice Department's 1992 annual report on asset seizures declared, "No property may be seized unless the govern ment has probable cause to believe that it is subject to forfeiture.' ,28 In reality, govern ment officials are seizing people's property based solely on "hearsay" -rumor and gos sip-from anonymous informants. 29 (Hear say evidence is held in such low esteem in the American judicial system that it cannot be introduced into court in criminal proceedings.) Police routinely refuse to reveal their source of a rumor about the forfeiture target; some policemen have likely invented anonymous informants to give them a pre text to take private property they covet. In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, police seized the $250,000home of a dead man from his heirs who had cared for him while he was dying of cancer. The justification for the seizure? A "confidential informant told police that [two years earlier] the owner ... took a $10,000 payment from drug dealers who used a dock at the house along a canal to unload cocaine.

The informant can't recall the exact date, the boat's name or the dealers' names, and the government candidly says in its court brief it 'does not possess the facts necessary to be any more specific,' " as the Pittsburgh Press reported. 30 Although the police had no evidence that the deceased homeowner was involved in drug dealing, an informant's vague, uncorroborated assertion was suffi cient to evict the owners and seize the property. While government agents can use hearsay evidence to justify a seizure, prop erty owners are usually prohibited from offering hearsay evidence to support their claims. Law enforcement officialsare also seizing apartment buildings to punish the landlords for not eradicating drug dealing in the apart ments. (If the same standard were applied to inner-city public housing projects, almost every public housing project in the country could be seized from the government; in 1993 Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke blamed maintenance problems at one public housing project on drug dealers who refused to let city workers enter the buildings.)31 In Florida, the Dade County Commission revised county laws in 1989 to allow county officials "to demolish a nuisance building within 30 days after the police report drug activity at the property. Proof of drug ac tivity is defined in the ordinance as one arrest. ,,32 The owner of a 36-unit apartment building in Milwaukee sought to placate the police by evicting ten tenants suspected of drug use, giving a master key to local beat cops, forwarding tips to the police, and hiring two security firms to patrol the build10 THE FREEMAN • JANUARY 1996 ing. The city still seized the building be cause, as Milwaukee city attorney David Stanosz declared, "Once a property devel ops a reputation as a place to buy drugs, the only way to fix that is to leave it totally vacant for a number of months. This land lord doesn't want to do that."

The owner had encouraged the police to send undercover agents into the building but the police claimed they were too short of officers.33 In July 1992, several Cleve land landlords informed the police of drug dealing in their buildings; the city responded by quickly seizing the buildings and evict ing all tenants, even in a building where drug-dealing occurred in a single apart ment.34 Apparently, the worse the police fail to control crime, the more power police acquire to seize law-biding citizens' prop erty. The Long Arm of Legal Plunder Asset forfeiture is spreading like wildfire through the statute books. Some Islamic countries impose draconian penalties on men who approach and talk to women in public. In Washington, D.C., Portland, Or egon, and Hartford, Connecticut, police confiscate the cars of men who drive up and suggest a "capitalist act between consenting adults" to streetwalkers. Customs Service officialsin Texas seized a $138,000Lear jet after discovering that the owner had made a typographical error on paperwork he sub mitted to the Federal Aviation Administra tion.35 (The FAA's usual response to such a mistake is to require the owner to correct the form.) The Immigration and Naturalization Ser vice has seized over 30,000cars and trucks since 1990from either people helping illegal immigrants enter the United States or con struction companies transporting illegal im migrants to job sites.36 Customs agents confiscated the $113,000that a Vietnamese mother had collected from 20 families in the Seattle area to take back to Vietnam for humanitarian relief for their relatives. 37 (Customs officials pronounced the woman guilty of violating the Trading with the Enemy Act.) A New Jersey mother's Oldsmobile was confiscated by police after they alleged that her son had used it to drive to a store where he shoplifted a pair of pants. 38 One New York businessman was forced to forfeit all of his·gas stations because of a failure to pay New York sales tax. 39 A New Jersey construction company had all its equipment seized after state officials decided that the company was technically ineligibleto bid on three municipal projects that it had already completed.40 Suffolk County, New York, legislators considered a law in 1993 to allow local officialsto confiscate the "cars, boats and planes used in connection with any misdemeanor. ',41 Asset confiscation programs are creating thousands of new police informants. The Justice Department routinely gives mone tary rewards to individuals who report in formation or make accusations that lead to a seizure. The forfeiture program thus turns many airline ticket agents into conspirators with the government, since anyone who pays cash for an airline ticket stands a chance ofbeing reported as a suspected drug dealer or an accomplice to drug dealing.

Perverse Incentives Forfeiture is the biggest growth area in law enforcement partly because federal and local police agencies usually keep a large amount of the booty they seize. Federal Judge Richard Arnold noted in 1992 that some observers were questioning' 'whether we are seeing fair and effective law,enforce ment or an insatiable appetite for it source for increased .agencyrevenue.' ,42 In Nueces County, Texas, Sheriff James Hickey used assets from a federal drug forfeiture fund to grant himself a retroactive $48,000 salary increase just before retirement ($400 a month for the previous ten years). The sheriff was indicted for embezzlement by a federal grand jury in August 1993.43 Even internal government documents concede that federal agents have gone overboard: a September 1992 Justice Department newsSEIZURE FEVER: THE WAR ON PROPERTY RIGHTS 11 letter noted, "Like children in a candy shop, the law enforcement community chose all manner and method of seizing and forfeit ing property, gorging ourselves in an effort which soon came to resemble one designed to raise revenues.,,44 Prosecutors and legislators stack the deck against property rights. A 1990 Justice De partment directive declared, "It is the De partment's position that no advance notice or opportunity for an adversary hearing is statutorily or constitutionally required prior to the seizure of property, including real property. ',45 Professor Claudio Riedi noted in 1992 in the University o/Miami Law Review, "Fre quently, the government can meet its bur den of proof by simply qualifying one of its detectives as an expert, who then testifies that a particular way of bundling money is typical for drug dealers. Standing alone, such testimony may be enough for a show ing of probable cause, and may therefore entitle the government to forfeiture. In con trast, an innocent owner must adduce mas sive evidence to prove her case. ,,46 The Orlando Sentinel noted, "Deputies routinely said bills in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 were suspicious because they are typical of what dealers carry. But that leaves few alternatives for others. ',47 In most forfeiture court proceedings, it is up to the owner to prove that his house, his car, or the cash in his wallet was legally obtained-the government has no obligation to prove that the property is guilty. The fact that a government officialmakes an unsub stantiated assertion that a piece of property was somehow involved in illicit activity effectively transfers the ownership of that property to the government.

Asset forfeiture is proliferating in part because of a technicality in the law that allows the government to claim that it is suing only the item of property, not the property's owner. This is why forfeiture cases often· have peculiar titles such as "U.S. v.1960bagsofcoffee," "U.S. VS. 9.6 acres of land and lake," or "U.S. vs. 667 bottles ofwine ." And since the Billof Rights recognizes the rights only of citizens and state governments, not the rights of chunks of land or bottles of wine, there are almost no due process restrictions on government's attacks on property. A federal appeals court recognized this when it announced in Au gust 1992: "We continue to be enormously troubled by the government's increasing and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes.' ,48 The citizen must show vastly more evidence to reclaim his property than the government did to seize it in the first place.

Government officials routinely refuse to return seized property even after an accused person has been tried and found innocent. The costs of suing the government to re cover property are extremely high, rou tinely exceeding $10,000, and citizens must post a bond of up to $5,000 before filingsuit. (The bond is required to cover the govern ment's legal costs in having to defend against a property owner's efforts to reclaim his property.) The legal battles required to recover wrongfully seized property often take two, three, or more years. If the prop erty seized is only worth a few hundred dollars, the person cannot possibly break even by suing the government. Most forfei ture statutes deny a private citizen any compensation for his attorney's fees when he successfully reclaims forfeited property. No End in Sight Although the number of asset forfeiture actions has skyrocketed in recent years, Justice Department officials apparently be lieve that the seizure bull market has only just begun. Cary H. Copeland, director of the Department of Justice's Executive Of fice for Asset Forfeiture, declared at a June 1993 congressional hearing: "Asset forfei ture is still in its relative infancy as a law enforcement program.,,49 The Federal Bureau of Investigation announced in 1992that it anticipated that its total seizures of private property would increase 25 percent each year for the following three years.50 The Supreme Court marginally limited govern12 THE FREEMAN • JANUARY 1996 ment forfeiture powers in several 1993 de cisions, but Justice Department spokesman Mark Sakaley indicated that the decisions were not expected to have a major impact on forfeiture programs.

Mr. Copeland declared that asset forfei ture "is to the drug war what smart bombs and air power are to modern warfare.,,51 Asset forfeiture basically allows govern ment agencies to carpet bomb the rights of the American people. The Federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals complained in 1992 that it was "troubled by the government's view that any property, whether it be a hobo's hovel or the Empire State Building, can be seized by the government because the owner, regardless of his or her past criminal record, engages in a single drug transaction. ',52 Conclusions and Implications Law enforcement in the United States is reverting back toward conditions existing in England before the Magna Carta, when rulers almost automatically seized all the property of any person convicted of a fel ony. Such seizures spurred English barons to force King John to limit his powers in 1215.53 Unfortunately, some federal officials appear to cherish a pre-thirteenth century philosophy of government power. (A 1992 U.S. Solicitor General's brief quoted the Old Testament and praised forfeiture as an "ancient punishment. ")54 Asset forfeiture provisions presume that government offi cials should have the power to inflict eco nomic capital punishment on private citi zens for the breaking of scores of laws.

Many civil libertarians believed that the liberal Clinton administration and Attorney General Janet Reno would correct some of the most overt abuses in the forfeiture program. However, Reno has continually postponed substantive reform and even de railed a bipartisan liberal-conservative con gressional effort to reform the forfeiture law. Instead, Reno's Justice Department has put forward its own "reform" proposal that has been derided as a "prosecutor's wish list" by forfeiture expert David Smith. The asset seizure controversy redefines the relation between the State and the citi zen: what pretext does the State need to claim that a citizen's property actually be longs to the State? Do people have a right to their property only until some "secret in formant" tells police something bad about the citizen's use of his property? If Congress proposed to forcibly alter all private deeds and titles in the United States by adding a clause stating that the government acquires automatic ownership rights if any law en forcement official hears a rumor about a property's possible illicit use, the public backlash would raze Capitol Hill. But, in creasingly, that is the law of the land. D 1. The federal government had possessed limited seizure powers since 1789, but these were limited to areas such as smuggling and customs evasion.

2. Cary Copeland, "Civil Forfeiture for the Non-Law yer, " u.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau ofJustice Assistance Forfeiture Project, Spring 1992. 3. Brief of the Institute for Justice in the case of U.S. vs. James Daniel Good Real Property, et al., No. 92-1180. 4. In California alone, more than $180 million worth of property has been forfeited since 1989 under a state forfeiture law. Gary Webb, "Police lobbying to save state asset forfeiture law," San Jose Mercury News, September 7, 1993. 5. Interview with Steven Kessler, September 21, 1993. Kessler's study on forfeiture is titled Civil and Criminal Forfeiture: Federal and State Practice (New York: Clark, Boardman and Callaghan, 1993). 6. Lynne Marek, "Hyde Seeks to Curb Property Seizures by U.S.," Chicago Tribune, June 16, 1993. 7. Paul Kirby, "S.C. Woman: Criminal Asset Forfeiture Program Needs Reforms," States News Service, June 22, 1993.

8. Paul Finkelman, "The Latest Front in the War on Drugs: The First Amendment," Drug Law Report, March April 1991. 9. Willie Jones v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administra tion, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5409 (April 23, 1993). 10. Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty, "Police Profit by Seizing Homes of Innocent," Pittsburgh Press, August 12, 1991. 11. Christopher Elser, "Two Admit Growing in Marijuana at Home," Allentown (Pa.) Morning Call, March 16, 1995. 12. Gary Fields, " 'Robbery with a Badge' in the Nation's Capital," USA Today, May 18, 1992. 13. Ibid. 14. Jeff Brazil and Steve Berry, "Tainted cash or easy money?" Orlando Sentinel, various dates, 1992. The series of articles won the 1993 Pulitzer Prize. 15. "Weeks After Seizing Pickups, Feds Still Mum About Charges," Livestock Weekly, May 21, 1992. 16. Interview with Anthony Nicholas, counsel for the Smiths, July 31, 1993. 17. Written statement of W. B. Smith, December 1992.

18. U.S. Congress, House Government Operations Com mittee, Asset Forfeiture, June 22, 1993. Written statement submitted by Nancy Hollander, p. 9. 19. Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty, "Govern ment Seizures Victimize Innocent," Pittsburgh Press, August 11, 1991. 20. Phil Reeves, "Gun Law Claims a Rich Recluse," The Independent, October 18, 1992.

SEIZURE FEVER: THE WAR ON PROPERTY RIGHTS 13 21. Editorial, "Thieves with Badges," Sacramento Bee, April 2, 1993. 22. Carol Bidwell, "Motives for Raid Questioned," Hous ton Chronicle, ApriI4,1993. 23. Michael Fessier, "Trial's End," Los Angeles Times Magazine, August 1, 1993. 24. Daryl Kelley, "Block Challenges Critical Report on Malibu Ranch Raid," Los Angeles Times, April 9, 1993. 25. Editorial, "Thieves with Badges." 26. Dennis O'Brien, "Prosecutors Want Veto of Forfeiture Bill," Baltimore Sun, April 18, 1994. 27. Ibid. 28. U.S. Department of Justice, Annual Report of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program 1991 (Wash ington: Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 7. 29. As lawyer Terrance G. Reed noted, "This probable cause standard for seizure allows the government to dispossess property owners based only upon hearsay or innuendo 'evidence' of insufficient reliability to be admissible in a court of law." Terrance G. Reed, "American Forfeiture Law: Property Owners Meet the Prosecutors," Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 179, September 29, 1992.

30. Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty, "With Sketchy Data, Government Seizes House From Man's Heirs," Pittsburgh Press, August 14, 1991. 31. Mary Pemberton, "Baltimore Public-Housing Tenants Begin a Rent Strike," Associated Press, February 24, 1993. 32. "In War on Narcotics, Tough New Statutes Target Owners of Drug-Ridden Properties," Wall Street Journal, March 29, 1989. 33. Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty, "Police Profit by Seizing Homes of Innocent. " 34. "Landlords Upset with Board-ups," United Press International, July 29, 1992. 35. Written statement of Forfeiture Endangers American Rights, Franklin, New Jersey, September 30, 1992. 36. U.S. Department of Justice, Annual Report (1991), p.29. 37. Brazil and Berry. 38. David Kaplan, Bob Cohn, and Karen Springen, "Where the Innocent Lose," Newsweek, January 4, 1993, p.42. 39. Reed, op. cit., p. 12. 40. Ibid., p. 1. 41. Rick Brand and Katti Gray, "DWI? They Might Take Your Car," Newsday, May 12, 1993.

42. U.S. v. Twelve Thousand, Three Hundred Ninety Dollars, 956 F. 2d 801, 808 (1992). 43. "Sheriff's Own Pay Raise Leads to Indictment," As sociated Press, August 19, 1993. 44. U.S. Department of Justice, "Message from the Direc tor: 'Do the Right Thing,' " Asset Forfeiture News, Septem ber-october 1992, p. 2. 45. U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Officefor Asset Forfeiture, "Departmental Policy Regarding Seizure of Occu pied Real Property," Directive No. 90-10, October 9, 1990. 46. Claudio Riedi, "To Shift or to Shaft: Attorney Fees for Prevailing Claimants in Civil Forfeiture Suits," University of Miami Law Review, Vol. 47, September 1992, pp. 147. 47. Brazil and Berry. 48. U.S. v. All Assets ofState wideAuto Parts, Inc., 971 F. 2d 905 (1992). 49. Statement of Cary H. Copeland before the Subcom mittee on Legislation and National Security, Government Operations Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, June 22, 1993, p. 4.

. 50. U.S. Department of Justice, Annual Report of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program 1991 (Wash ington: Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 27. 51. Dennis Cauchon, "Government Doesn't Have to Prove Guilt," USA TODAY, May 18, 1992. 52. United States v. One Parcel ofProperty Located at 508 Depot Street, Docket No. 91-2382SD,May 20, 1992. 53. Brief of American Library Assoc. et al., in Ferris Alexander v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 91-1526, Sep tember 2, 1992,p. 6. "Criminal forfeiture in personam arose in medieval England, where, following a felony conviction, the entire estate of the felon was confiscated and any inheritance from the felon was prohibited. In the Magna Carta, forfeiture on the ground of commission of a felony was sharply curtailed, but survived to an extent in the English common law." 54. Brieffor the United States, FerrisJ. Alexanderv. U.S., No. 91-1526,October 29, 1992, p. 43.

"II LibertiJl is a lively, idiosyncratic publication, presenting fresh and original com ments ... I very much enjoy it .. ." -Milton Friedman "Liberty is the leading journal of the libertarian movement." - Whole EarthReview "Liberty is a delight! It's intelligent, lively, and refreshingly free of dogma. I look forward to every issue." -Ed Crane, President, Cato Institute "Liberty is the most exciting and enjoyable freedom magazine, always interesting, always bold, and always challenging. It's the first thing I read when it arrives in the mail." -Mark Skousen, economist Liberty is a probing, provocative magazine that takes economic freedom seriously ... and the status quo with more than one grain of salt. You'll like Liberty. But don't just take Milton Friedman's word for it, or Ed Crane's, Mark Skousen's. Try Liberty. 100%guaranteed satisfaction, or your money back. Use the cou pon below, or call toll-free: 1-800-854-6991.

You have nothing to lose, and the fruits of liberty to gain! ~---------------,Yes' Send me one year (six issues) of Liberty,to the address givI • en below. I enclose $19.50. I I Name _ II Address _ I City, State, Zip I L-.- L ~be~,~p.;.~ ~.~x.u8~(~~~7=n:n'l.W~~68.1 THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBERTY Building Code Blues by James D. Saltzman "The authority of government," wrote Henry David Thoreau, "can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it." But the city of Houston has a different view, that individ uals have no pure right over their property except what the government concedes to them. Consider the case of Leonard and Betty Leath. In September of 1990, the Leaths pur chased a dilapidated 47-unit apartment com plex in Houston. During the next two years, they spent $260,000to repair the building, planning to offer affordable housing to the low-income elderly. In early 1992 city in spectors found the Leaths' project "as se cure as any other construction in the city."