Civil Forfeiture Overtakes NYLS Imagine that the police have asked you to spy on your neighbor, Marijuano Snow, a known drug dealer.1 You have never taken part in any of Marijuano's crimes. However, every now and then, he slips your fifteen-year-old son, Jinx (who hangs out on your front steps), a few bucks to call out when. the police cruiser is about to roll by. When you refuse to do the police's bidding, the prosecutor seizes your home under a statute that declares forfeit any "real property, . . . which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter .... " Although you may bring an action against the government for the return of your home, you will fail unless you can prove that your home does not fall within the statute. Is this a taking without just compensation and thus prohibited by the U.S. Constitution? Is the burden of proof properly allocated in the action against the government? These are only two of the many issues that arise in the area of civil forfeiture. On Saturday, March 5, 1994, in the Ernst Steifel Reading Room, the
New York Law School Law Review assembled an impressive array
audience included practitioners and students. Coffee and lunch were served. One audience member, an attorney, told me "This is a beautiful room!" He noted, in particular, the chandeliers. The panelists were: Mary M. Cheh, Professor, The National Law Center, George Washington University; Cameron H. Holmes, Unit Chief, Financial Remedies Unit, Arizona Attorney General's Office; Roger Pilon, Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Steven L. Kessler, Law Offices of Steven L.
I'HoTo Br Scorr STAR
of legal scholars and practitioners to address these and many other issues in a symposium entitled "What Price Civil Forfeiture? Constitutional Implications and Reform Initiatives." The symposium was organized by Law Review Executive Editor Deborah Duseau ('94), with the help of Professor Nadine Strossen, and moderated by Professor David Schoenbrod. According to Professor Schoenbrod, this was the first law review symposium on the subject. About 80 people attended the event and the
Kessler; Ellen Silverman Zimiles, Chief, Asset Forfeiture Unit, Criminal Division, Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York; Stephan D. Cassella, Trial Attorney, Asset Forfeiture Office, United States Department of Justice; Terrance G. Reed, Partner, Asbill Junkin & Myers; George M. Fishman, Legislative Counsel to United States Representative Henry Hyde and the House Republican Policy Committee; and Terrence P. Farley, Director, National Drug Prosecution Center. This distinguished panel explored some of the ben-
efits and dangers of civil forfeiture. They also discussed reforms and recent Supreme Court cases on the matter. Civil forfeiture appeared in the 1970s as a law enforcement tool used to seize the proceeds, contraband, and instrumentalities of criminals. Advocates assert that it is a quick and efficient means of stripping criminals of property they use to commit a crime, and that it is a vital law enforcement tool. To support civil forfeiture, Ms. Silverman Zimiles cited an example where an apartment building in Washington Heights was seized from its landlord because it was infested with drugrelated activity. Its seizure, she said, has now allowed mothers to sit safely out in front of the building with their baby carriages. Critics, including Professor Schoenbrod and Ms. Duseau, assert that forfeitures of the kind in the hypothetical violate both the Takings Clause and the Excessive Fines Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They also assert that civil forfeiture statutes, such as the one in the hypothetical, are void for vagueness. Critics also cite the lack of constitutional and procedural safeguards that are used to regulate other types of punishment, and that this law enforcement tool's danger to civil rights outweighs its alleged benefits. Other issues implicated by civil forfeiture include double jeopardy, and the right against self-incrimination. One by one, the panelists expressed their views on the subject. Not surprisingly, they were all well prepared for the symposium. Making the event more interesting were the different
Continued on page 13