From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Suspicion-based Evictions (was: Civil Forfeiture Metastasizes!)
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:36:35 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <vx1tclm@rpi.edu>, 
wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) said:

> It was reported last week that police are considering seizing
> apartment buildings where 3 people have have been arrested for
> drugs, unless the landlord acts aggressively to evict people.
> Note that I said "arrested" not "convicted".

For a bit of good news on this subject -- news which, if it survives
Supreme Court scrutiny (hah!), could inhibit such shit -- here's a
month-old article (from the 3/4/92 Boston Globe, p.15)...

  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-

Court rejects U.S. plan to evict drug suspects
----------------------------------------------

(Associated Press)

   RICHMOND -- The federal government's plan to evict suspected drug
users from public housing projects in 23 cities violates the
Constitution, a federal appeals court said yesterday.

   A three-judge panel of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals
unanimously upheld a December 1990 ruling by US District Judge
Richard L. Williams that barred convictions without notice and a
hearing, except in extraordinary circumstances.

   The plan was an effort by the Justice Department and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to encourage federal
prosecutors to remove drug offenders promptly from 
public housing and seize the property.  The cities that were to have
been affected were not identified.

   "The reason courts are so protective of due process rights is to
protect innocent people from mistakes,: said Florence Roisman, a
lawyer for the National Housing Law Project in Washington.  "That's
what this preserves --- the constitutional insistence on fair
procedures."

   The National Public Housing Asset Forfeiture Project would have
allowed authorities to evict tenants even if no arrests had been
made, she said.

   "It's hysteria in the name of the war on drugs," she said.  "The
government has lots of other tools to go after people."

   "The National Tenants Organization, the Richmond Tenants
Organization and the Resident Authority Board of the Housing
Authority of Baltimore contended that evictions planned under the
project were illegal.

   The housing authorities in Richmond and Baltimore notified
tenants about the plan, prompting residents to ask Williams for an
injunction before any evictions could take place.

   On appeal, the government argued that drug activity in a public
housing project is serious enough to warrant prompt action to
protect other residents.  The appeals court disagreed.

   "The mere use or possession of narcotics would not in every case
constitute an extraordinary situation," Judge Alexander Harvey 2d
wrote in the opinion.

  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-

Of course, (1) this holding is law only within the 4th Circuit
(W.Va., Md., Va., N.C. and S.C.), (2) the US can still appeal this
to the Supreme Court, which would probably reverse the 4th Circuit,
and (3) as victories go, this is only a small battle won in a war
that's rapidly being lost... but these days -- especially today,
with the Noreiga convictions fresh news -- any good news is welcome.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs