Get Active Subscribe Support Us

STATE SHOULD RESTRICT UNJUST FORFEITURES

Many state legislators from other parts of the commonwealth often treat Philadelphia like an exotic foreign country.  But they should pay close attention to a Dec.  30 Commonwealth Court decision on a case that originated in Philadelphia, and quickly codify its findings as law.

At issue was civil forfeiture, a procedure that initially was authorized by many state legislatures as a weapon against drug-dealing, but which has become a cash cow for many law enforcement agencies nationwide at the expense of innocent civilians.

Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors are able to seize and dispose of property used in the commission of an alleged drug crime, even when the property is not owned by the person or people who committed the crime.

In the case decided by the Commonwealth Court, the Philadelphia district attorney's office had seized the home of a 69-year-old widow whose son had been arrested for allegedly selling $200 worth of marijuana there.

The ruling overturned the seizure and calls for new rules of evidence to prove that the owner of confiscated property actually participated in the alleged criminal conduct.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams planned to appeal, citing a hypothetical situation in defending the practice.  If a suburban man drives into Philadelphia to hire a prostitute, he said, there is nothing wrong with a scenario where that individual has to call his wife and tell her the Volvo has been confiscated.

Well, sure, in a barroom conversation way.  But that presumes that the hypothetical "john" owns the vehicle.  Is it really right to confiscate the vehicle without due process; and how is it just if his wife, rather than he, owns the car and needs it for legitimate family business?

The Legislature shouldn't wait for an appeal.  It should revisit the forfeiture law to ensure that it serves justice rather than police agencies' budgets.