Supreme Court Accepts Drug Forfeiture Cases

By Murray, Frank J. | The Washington Times (Washington, DC), January 13, 1996 | Go to article overview

Supreme Court Accepts Drug Forfeiture Cases


Murray, Frank J., The Washington Times (Washington, DC)


The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide whether the Constitution bars prosecution of drug lords after civil courts seize money and property associated with their crimes.

Hundreds of prosecutions are endangered because criminals are winning federal appeals on double-jeopardy grounds, Solicitor General Drew S. Days III said in asking the court to settle the question.

Federal appeals courts in the 6th and 9th circuits found aspects of the civil and criminal processes unconstitutional, but earlier cases in the 1st and 11th circuits were decided for the government. Resolving such splits among circuits is a prime function for the high court.

Even the sternest anti-crime activists voice qualms about the fairness of civil forfeitures, particularly when the wealth gained helps finance the law enforcement agency that brings the case.

"I think there is a growing unease with what is perceived to be a rising zeal for forfeitures," said Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif.

"I have some reservations on forfeiture. It is a valuable tool when done properly, but I am uneasy when the agency that does the forfeiture ends up with the money," he said yesterday.

The court took these cases involving forfeiture issues:

* The 1992 Los Angeles convictions of James Wren and Charles Arlt, who were sent to prison for manufacturing amphetamines and laundering money by one federal judge, then ordered by another in a civil case to forfeit $405,089.23 in cash plus automobiles, silver ingots, a helicopter and a boat.

* The seizure of $5 million in property in Lake Tahoe, Nev., Squaw Valley, Calif., and Hawaii belonging to Brian J. Degen, a dual citizen of the United States and Switzerland who stayed in Europe to avoid trial for a smuggling operation that imported $250 million worth of drugs. His attorney in the civil case was not permitted to offer a defense because the client was a fugitive.

* The 1993 marijuana conviction of Guy Jerome Ursery, who forfeited $13,250 as a civil penalty for growing the narcotic on his farm in Perry, Mich.

Only Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor were at the court yesterday when orders were issued. The decisions came at a conference moved up to Thursday because of snow warnings.

Justice O'Connor drove her own car to work, while court police again fetched the chief justice in a four-wheel-drive vehicle. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Supreme Court Accepts Drug Forfeiture Cases
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.