From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:04:19 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <1992Apr7.193851.9037@zip.eecs.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>
>>There was a thing on "60 Minutes" about the 1984 Seizure Law.
>>Apparently, the police have the right to take anything and everything
>>they want to at any time if they _suspect_ drugs are in any way involved.
>>They don't even have to charge you with a crime, and they can keep what
>>they've seized.  One guy had to buy back his own seized jet at a gov't
>>seizure auction.  That is bullshit.  I suspect that this law may be 
>>ruled unconstitutional, go to the Supreme Court, and be ultimately upheld
>>by the ultra right-wing court.  Maybe, maybe not.  But it is a very bad
>>law.  
>
>My understanding from the information presented in the story was that
>the law had already been challenged and found to be constitutional.
>Does anybody know what the test case was and what rationale was used
>to determine the constitutionality of the seizure law?  Is the 
>decision online somewhere?
>
Here in Spokane, Washington, we have a Gypsy community. They've long been
held suspect of a variety of things --not for fact, but for their ethnic
heritage.

Six years ago, the police made a raid (with a bogus search warrant) and
took from the family homes cash and jewelry with an estimated value of a
quarter of a million dollars. In the trials that followed, every charge
againt the families was found to be false. The city had planned to keep
the items taken, on the "ill-gotten gains" doctrine, but had to give it
all back. They were unable to.

The gypsy families just won a 40 MILLION dollar lawsuit against the city
of Spokane. The city is on the run, it's self insured, and has no money
in the coffers. A federal judge is going to rule soon on what the total
actual award should be (amended from the jury award) and what kind of 
payment program should be instituted.

I tacked this on to the ongoing discussion on seizures, to make a point
that sometimes the seizures made by the police are out of policy, and
that the idea of siezure itself is a bad one. (In the frame of reference
currently under discussion).


But I'm also posting, because I wonder what the ramifications of a city
which has been successfully sued (but can't pay) might be. The City of
Spokane and Spokane County have 3 more 'loser lawsuits' in the wings,
and it's wondered just how the city and the county are going to deal 
with these.

Aside from saying "higher taxes bud" or some of the other sarcasm from
people, what ARE the legal ramifications of this? Can the city elect
not to pay judgements against it? Is it possible to get an order of
garnisheement or seize city property in the same way that an individual
or a business can have their debt prosecuted? 

What about the way that cities and counties "self insure" themselves,
expecting to pay out of funds that don't exist? Can they be further
litigated against for for negligence, malfeasance, or dereliction?


-- 
Bob Kirkpatrick                      "You run and you run to catch up with
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA      the sun, but it's sinking. ...Racing
root@dogear.spk.wa.us                 around to come up behind you again."