From: [C upi] at [clari.net] (UPI / MICHAEL KIRKLAND)
Newsgroups: clari.news.alcohol+drugs
Subject: Court: Forfeiture not double jeopardy
Keywords: legal, supreme courts, illegal drugs, US government, US federal
Organization: Copyright 1996 by United Press International
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:20:15 PDT

                                         
        WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a  
potent government weapon against drug trafficking -- property forfeiture 
-- does not constitute double jeopardy. 
        The ruling reverses U.S. courts in Michigan and California, which  
declared that prosecuting suspects for drug crimes while forfeiting 
their property in civil suits was double jeopardy -- trying someone for 
the same thing twice -- and violated the Fifth Amendment. 
        The Fifth Amendment says, among other things, that no ``person  
(shall) be subject to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of 
life and limb...'' 
        The Justice Department had argued that it takes two completely  
different sets of factors to convict someone of a criminal drug charge 
and simultaneously forfeit the suspect's property and cash -- even if the 
conduct being prosecuted is the same in each case. 
        Because the proofs needed for conviction are different, the  
department said, civil forfeiture and criminal prosecution for the same 
conduct does not constitute double jeopardy. 
        Monday, the Supreme Court agreed.  
        ``These civil forfeitures (and civil forfeitures generally), we hold,  
do not constitute 'punishment' for purposes of the double jeopardy 
clause'' of the Constitution, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for 
the court. 
        Rehnquist said Supreme Court precedents regarding double jeopardy  
``adhere to a remarkably consistent theme...civil forfeiture is a 
remedial civil sanction, district from potentially punitive 'in 
personam' (against a person) civil penalties such as fines, and does not 
constitute a punishment under the double jeopardy clause.'' 
        All of the justices concurred in the judgment, though Justice John  
Paul Stevens said the court did not make a fine enough distinction among 
the types of forfeitures available to the federal government. 
        ``Congress' decision to create novel and additional penalties should  
not be permitted to eviscerate the protection against governmental 
overreaching embodied in the (Constitution's) double jeopardy clause,'' 
Stevens said. 
        One of the cases before the court involved two methamphetamine --  
``speed'' -- manufacturers who were convicted in 1992 in U.S. District 
Court in Los Angeles. 
        After the convictions, the government moved to confiscate their  
assets, contending they were the product of illegal narcotics activity. 
        A federal judge granted the Justice Department's request and allowed  
the forfeiture. 
        But a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling  
that a criminal prosecution and a parallel civil forfeiture action 
constitute ``separate'' proceedings for double jeopardy. 
        The second case involves a couple in Perry, Mich. Police found 142  
marijuana plants on their property, a ``grow light'' and two loaded 
firearms in 1992, court records say. 
        First, the government filed a complaint in U.S. District Court that  
sought to forfeit the couple's home. Before trial, however, the couple 
settled the complaint by agreeing to pay the government $13,250. 
        While the civil action was pending, a federal grand jury indicted the  
husband, Guy Jerome Ursery, on one count of manufacturing marijuana, and 
he was convicted at trial. 
        Following the conviction, however, Ursery's lawyer moved to have the  
indictment dismissed on double jeopardy grounds. 
        A federal judge denied the motion, but a divided panel of the 6th U.  
S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted it, dismissing the indictment. 
        The panel also ruled that ``any civil forfeiture under the (federal  
drug laws) constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes.'' 
        Monday's Supreme Court decision reverses both lower court rulings and  
sends the cases back for rehearing based on the decision. 
 (Nos. 95-345, U.S. vs. Ursery; and 346, U.S. vs. $405,089.23 et al)