Pubdate: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 Source: Edmonton Journal (CN AB) Copyright: 2013 The Edmonton Journal Contact: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/letters-to-the-editor.html Website: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/134 DO SEIZURE LAWS REACH TOO FAR? There is something almost poetic about the seizure of ill-gotten booty. For most law-abiding citizens, making the bad guys pay seems like a perfectly sound course of action. As with so many things, though, the devil lies in the details. The No. 1 detail, of course, is that before we make these villains surrender their goods, let's make certain they are truly villainous. In a U.S. courtroom earlier this week, mobster James (Whitey) Bulger waived his right to contest the forfeiture of $822,000 in cash, along with guns and personal possessions found in his California hideaway when he was captured in June 2011 after 16 years on the lam. The former head of Boston's notorious Winter Hill Gang sought only to hold onto one personal item: a 1986 Canadiens' Stanley Cup ring. Most of us would happily rip that ring from his bloody hands as well. Bulger was found guilty Monday of a host of gangland crimes, including 11 murders. Closer to home, Alberta's forfeiture laws have also been making news. In what they characterized as an unprecedented case Tuesday, Edmonton police said they had seized a luxury SUV after arresting and charging its owner on July 31 following an investigation into nine separate road-rage incidents over a two year period. Few details of the case were released but one thing is certain - the man has yet to be found guilty in court. The seizure is part of a recent pattern in this province. In June, Solicitor General Jonathan Denis rejected a request by Alberta police chiefs for the power to seize the vehicles of excessive speeders, an enforcement action that would have been solely at the discretion of the roadside officer. Nine months earlier, under amended Traffic Safety Act regulations, Alberta police were given the power to immediately seize vehicles of drivers caught with a blood-alcohol level between .05 and .08, even though that is not a Criminal Code violation. Concerns have been expressed that this sort of legislation eliminates the due-process protection when it comes to policing the police. But in fact Albertans should expect more of this sort of thing in the future. Recent changes to provincial forfeiture laws will make it even faster and easier for authorities to seize money, cars and houses from people they allege to be criminal in nature. As an example, if police in the course of an investigation discover over $10,000 in bulk cash, and there is no evidence that money was connected to legitimate activity, then it can be presumed to be a proceed of crime, and taken away. Alberta started allowing police to seize "tools" or proceeds of crime in 2008 under the Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act. The goal was to disrupt criminal activity, drug dealing in particular, and divert that money to help victims of crime. Indeed, the civil forfeiture office has seized about $25 million in property and cash over the past five years. Forfeiture laws, imported to Canada over the years from the U.S., now exist in seven provinces but the B.C. experience might be most instructive. Two years ago, B.C. became the first province to stretch its appropriation powers to "administrative forfeiture" - the authority to confiscate money or goods valued at less than $75,000 so long as a provincial justice official deems them to be the proceeds of crime. No conviction necessary. Such seizures can take place without a judge's say-so - and they're permanent as long as no one makes a claim for the goods within 60 days. There have been questions raised about the fairness and legitimacy of the B.C. legislation, the capriciousness of its application, and its flipped presumption of guilt. Given those concerns, it seems unwise to write a blank cheque for a fast-tracked forfeiture process in Alberta. Especially so when Alberta authorities said the laws here needed tweaking primarily to eliminate costly and frivolous stalling tactics by those individuals contesting the seizure of their assets. Few would argue with the suggestion that where a crime has been committed, the proceeds of that crime should go to victims or crime prevention. But snatching the property of people who have not been convicted or even charged with an offence violates the very essence of due process, and that is a practice worthy of the same suspicion that appears to serve as its fundamental principle. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom