The News Virginian / News Virginian
Published: October 16, 2007

Authorities seizing cash and property from citizens is a dirty business, even when the citizens in question are drug dealers, a group that resides already in society's mire. Police say snatching ill-gotten gains from suspects deprives bad guys of valuable resources. Opponents argue that civil forfeiture programs like Virginia's force people who have not yet been convicted of a crime to prove they have done nothing wrong.

Both assertions are true. Seizing assets, particularly in cases involving drug kingpins, is a potent weapon in the arsenal of authorities combating an enemy with ostensibly limitless resources. But punishing people before they have been convicted is problematic, particularly considering that many cases never even lead to conviction.

Forfeiture presents another problem. Stories of abuse have become common since asset seizures came into vogue a couple of decades ago. While police in some states are required to use forfeiture money exclusively for crime-fighting operations, others allow a wide range of uses that critics say has little to do with ridding our streets of drugs. Local police, for example, target some drug money for department weight rooms. In other states, drug money has covered the costs of motorcycle rodeos, bought government cars for administrators far removed from the drug fight or paid official cronies to conduct questionable 'anti-drug' programs that are pure fluff and no meat.

Worse yet is the problem uncovered by The News Virginian: The failure to do anything at all with some drug money. Our reporting found that almost $340,000 in cash and cars seized locally over the last 10 years remains in police evidence rooms and impound lots. Statewide, more than $24 million in assets have yet to be sent either to authorities or back to original owners. That figure is more than half the $46 million disbursed to agencies statewide during the same period.

In some instances, prosecutors either filed paperwork late or not at all. In others, the assets are part of evidence in a case still working its way through the judicial system. Local prosecutors, spurred by this newspaper's reporting, also have begun the process of returning some assets.

Like many critics of this program, we are uncomfortable with the idea of government possessing the power to seize assets from its citizens. But drug dealers are hardly the kind of 'citizens' about whom we are inclined to feel concerned. Further, we recognize authorities' point in championing the forfeiture program's part in fighting crime by cutting off dealers' resources. Using dealers' money, rather than taxpayers', to combat the drug trade sounds like poetic justice to us.

For those reasons we support the forfeiture program, only not in its current form.

The state needs to take steps to ensure that drug assets do not remain in limbo for years. Why seize assets only to leave them languish in evidence rooms and impound lots-

Tighter guidelines also are needed regarding both when a seizure is warranted and how the money will be used. Robbing a kingpin of his assets is justified. Hitting low-level players, who frequently plead their way to lesser offenses and rarely have significant assets to begin with, offers little reward for the effort in sheer paperwork. Requiring that drug money be used for actual crime-fighting operations, rather than to fill authorities' wish lists, would figure to produce better bang for the buck.

Although it is here to stay, as we think it should be, the forfeiture program clearly is flawed. It is time for the state to fix it.