Pubdate: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) Copyright: 2015 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc Contact: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/340 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture) FORFEITING THEIR RIGHTS Commonwealth Court did the right thing in overruling District Attorney Seth Williams' outrageous attempt to confiscate a West Philadelphia widow's home after police arrested her son for allegedly selling less than $200 worth of marijuana at the house. Following the filing of a federal suit challenging the city's civil forfeiture program, Williams has also backed off equally egregious efforts to take two other homes. In those cases as well, relatives of suspects accused of selling small quantities of drugs faced punishment even though they were not charged with a crime. These developments are welcome setbacks to the city's overly aggressive application of civil forfeiture laws, which, unlike criminal forfeiture statutes, do not require a suspect to be found guilty before property allegedly used in a crime can be taken. Philadelphia prosecutors have been confiscating property that is only suspected of being used in a crime. Darpana Sheth, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which filed the federal suit, says Williams may be backpedaling but she isn't standing down. That makes sense since Williams hasn't agreed to immediately change how forfeitures are handled. The Commonwealth Court decision will allow homeowners who can show they had little or no involvement in alleged illegal activity on their property to keep their homes. The decision, which Williams shouldn't appeal, also requires the city to set new, fairer standards to seize property. Williams' historically underfunded office has been using proceeds from civil forfeiture sales to supplement its budget, having collected more than $60 million worth of property in a decade. But depriving people of their property without finding out if they were actually involved in an alleged crime is a frighteningly hypocritical way to help fund a law enforcement agency. Further, it sets up a glaring conflict of interest. How judicious are prosecutors going to be in seizing property when their paychecks may depend on that cash? It would make more sense for Mayor Nutter and City Council to ensure the district attorney has adequate funds to run an effective office. The shameful practice of confiscating property to meet budget demands has smeared Williams' otherwise effective Public Nuisance Task Force, which has done good work in seizing properties actually used as drug houses and brothels. It shouldn't have taken a federal lawsuit or a Commonwealth Court decision to provide relief for people whose property never should have been confiscated. But more must be done. The legislature should change civil forfeiture laws to protect people from having their homes taken before they have received a fair hearing to determine their culpability. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom